Case Documents & Links

Case Documents

http://www.jud.state.ct.us/external/supapp/aro.htm#supreme

http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/CaseDetail/PublicCaseDetail.aspx?DocketNo=NNHCV065005107S

http://appellateinquiry.jud.ct.gov/CaseDetail.aspx?CRN=49764&Type=PartyName

http://www.jud.state.ct.us/external/supapp/

State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 - Conn: Supreme Court 1989

Further, the Appellate Court erred by refusing to review the defendant's claim since she proffered a constitutional claim and the record was clearly adequate to review that claim. State v. Hill, 201 Conn. 505, 512-13, 523 A.2d 1252 (1986); State v. Kurvin, supra, 558. We have for many years held that claims not raised
239
*239 in the trial court "can and will be considered" on appeal in two "exceptional circumstances." State v. Evans, supra, 70. One of those circumstances "may arise where the record adequately supports a claim that a litigant has clearly been deprived of a fundamental constitutional right and a fair trial."[8] (Emphasis added.) Id.

The state urges us to revise the Evans standard of review for errors not preserved at trial because the words used by the standard though easily said lend themselves to inconsistent application. We have reviewed our own cases and those of the Appellate Court, and we agree with the state that they demonstrate disparate approaches to the Evans criteria. Upon reflection, we have decided neither to adopt a pure plain error standard for alleged constitutional violations, nor to attempt to reconcile past Evans decisions. Instead, we articulate guidelines designed to facilitate a less burdensome, more uniform application of the present Evans standard in future cases involving alleged constitutional violations that are raised for the first time on appeal.

Relying on the methodology of State v. Whistnant, 179 Conn. 576, 427 A.2d 414 (1980),

we hold that a defendant can prevail on a claim of constitutional error not preserved at trial only if all of the following conditions are met:
(1) the record is adequate to review the alleged claim of error;[9]
(2) the claim is of constitutional magnitude alleging the violation of a fundamental right;
240*240
(3) the alleged constitutional violation clearly exists and clearly deprived the defendant of a fair trial; and
(4) if subject to harmless error analysis, the state has failed to demonstrate harmlessness of the alleged constitutional violation beyond a reasonable doubt. In the absence of any one of these conditions, the defendant's claim will fail. The appellate tribunal is free, therefore, to respond to the defendant's claim by focusing on whichever condition is most relevant in the particular circumstances.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11392692234307463966&q=State+v.+Golding&hl=en&as_sdt=80006&as_vis=1 

State v. Golding, 14 Conn. App. 272 - Conn: Appellate Court 1988

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16553990236949982583&q=State+v.+Golding&hl=en&as_sdt=80006&as_vis=1

http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=5150210

http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=5516062

http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=7772130

http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP149/149AP232.pdf

http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=7465487

http://appellateinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocViewer/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocID=92&AppID=1

http://appellateinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocViewer/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocID=11074&AppID=1

http://appellateinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocViewer/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocID=11076&AppID=1

http://waterburyobserver.blogspot.com/2007_12_01_archive.html

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7223947,-72.9758786,9z

http://victimsnewsonline.com/2015/04/smolinski-family-heads-back-to-court-defending-right-to-hang-fliers/

http://www.waterburyobserver.org/node/948

https://www.facebook.com/janice.smolinski.9?fref=nf

http://foxct.com/2015/02/27/cold-case-billy-smolinski/

http://www.nhregister.com/general-news/20150427/family-of-missing-billy-smolinski-argues-posters-protected-by-first-amendment

i

t http://www.justice4billy.com/
https://www.findthemissing.org/cases/43/0/

As the investigation continued, Waterbury Police received information from a man named Chad Hanson. According to witnesses, Hanson had information on Billy’s murder and the location of his body. Over a span of three years, Hanson led police all over the state digging up potential locations of Billy’s body. All information proved to be incorrect and Hanson was arrested and sentenced to 4.5 years in prison for making false statements.