Volume 336 — Connecticut Reports

The plaintiff, the administratrix of the estate of the decedent, B, sought to recover damages for the death of B as a result of the alleged negligence of the defendants, the town of Seymour and three officers of the Seymour Police Department. B was a backseat passenger in a vehicle operated by E. E had activated underglow lights that were affixed to the undercar- riage of the vehicle, the use of which are illegal, and an officer of the Seymour Police Department, observing the lights, pursued E's vehicle in an attempt to pull E over. In response to the pursuit, E operated his vehicle at a high rate of speed, and, after the officer activated his emergency lights and siren, he notified dispatch that he was in pursuit of E's vehicle. Within two minutes of the start of the pursuit, E's vehicle struck an embankment and flipped onto its roof, causing injuries to B that ultimately resulted in his death. The plaintiff alleged, inter alia, that the officer negligently pursued E's vehicle, the shift supervisor negligently failed to follow department protocol and failed to order the termination of the pursuit, and the defendant town was liable pursuant to statute (§ 52-557n (a) (1) (A)) for the negligent acts of its employees and was required to indemnify the defendant officers. The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, concluding that they were entitled to governmental immunity and that the plaintiff's claim regarding indemnification also failed as a matter of law. In conclud- ing that the defendants were immune from liability, the court reasoned that, although the statute (§ 14-283 (d)) governing the operation of emer- gency vehicles and the town pursuit policy required police officers, in determining whether to initiate a pursuit, to drive with due regard for the safety of the general public, that mandate necessarily required officers to exercise their judgment and that their duty under those provisions, therefore, was discretionary. The trial court rendered judgment for the defendants, from which the plaintiff appealed. Held: 1. This court having concluded that § 14-283 (d), the uniform statewide pursuit policy set forth in the applicable state regulations (§§ 14-283a- 1 through 14-283a-4), and the town pursuit policy require officers to exercise judgment in determining whether to pursue a fleeing motorist, the trial court correctly concluded that the defendant officers had a discretionary, rather than a ministerial, duty under § 14-283 (d) to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons and property and, therefore, were entitled to immunity from liability for their decision to pursue E's vehicle: the phrase ''due regard'' in § 14-283 (d) imposes a general duty on officers to exercise their judgment and discretion in a reasonable manner, and, therefore, the duty to act with due regard is a discretionary one, and the imposition of a discretionary duty under § 14-283 (d) was further supported by prior cases of this court that have interpreted similar statutory language to create a discretionary, rather than a ministe- rial, duty to act; moreover, the uniform statewide pursuit policy set forth in §§ 14-283a-1 through 14-283a-4 of the state regulations reinforces the discretionary nature of the duty of officers in the context of police pursuits, as that policy requires officers to evaluate the particular circum- stances presented and to weigh the risks presented by pursuing a vehicle against the risks presented by not pursuing; furthermore, the language of the town pursuit policy also reinforces the discretionary nature of the duty imposed on the defendant officers, as that language makes clear that they are required to exercise their judgment and discretion in evaluating the particular circumstances in determining whether to engage in and to continue a pursuit. 2. The trial court correctly determined that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the identifiable person-imminent harm exception to discretionary act immunity applied, as the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that B was an identifiable person or a member of a class of foreseeable victims: the record revealed that B was not legally compelled to get into E's vehicle and was a voluntary passenger, and, thus, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that B was a member of a class of foreseeable victims; moreover, notwithstanding the plaintiff's suggestion that, because § 14- 283 (d) requires officers to drive with due regard for the safety of the general public, B belonged to a class of foreseeable victims, that suggestion was inconsistent with both this court's prior interpretations of the scope of the identifiable person-imminent harm exception and the public policy principles underlying the grant of governmental immu- nity to the discretionary acts of municipal officers; furthermore, the plaintiff's argument that B was an identifiable person implicated the same public policy principle as her argument that he was a member of a class of foreseeable victims, as, in the context of a police pursuit, there always will be at least one person whose presence the police could or should be aware of, namely, the driver of the pursued vehicle, and, if this court agreed with the plaintiff, the exception would swallow the rule. (Two justices concurring separately in two opinions; one justice dissenting in one opinion) Argued April 29, 2019—officially released June 24, 2020

The petitioner, who had been convicted of the crimes of murder and conspir- acy to commit murder, filed a second petition for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming, inter alia, that his first habeas counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to raise the claim that the petitioner's due process rights were violated during his underlying criminal trial. Specifically, the petitioner claimed that the prosecutor failed to correct the allegedly false testimony of the state's key witnesses, S and V, that the state had not promised them anything in return for their cooperation and that they had not received any benefit in exchange for their cooperation. The habeas court rendered judgment denying the second petition, concluding that there was no due process violation, as the petitioner had failed to demonstrate that the trial testimony of S and V regarding their coopera- tion agreements with the state was false, the agreements were thor- oughly explored on both direct and cross-examination, and at least one of the defense attorneys involved in the consolidated criminal trial of the petitioner and his codefendants was aware of the cooperation agree- ments. On the granting of certification, the petitioner appealed to the Appellate Court, which affirmed the habeas court's judgment. The Appel- late Court concluded, inter alia, that the petitioner's due process rights under Napue v. Illinois (360 U.S. 264), and Giglio v. United States (405 U.S. 150), had not been violated because the agreements had been disclosed to defense counsel, and, therefore, the state was not required to correct the false testimony of S and V. Thereafter, the petitioner, on the granting of certification, appealed to this court. Held that the petitioner's due process rights were violated at his criminal trial when the prosecutor failed to correct the materially false testimony of S and V about benefits that the state had promised or provided to them in return for their cooperation, even though defense counsel had actual or constructive notice of the falsity of that testimony, and, accordingly, this court reversed the Appellate Court's judgment and remanded with direction to the habeas court to grant the petitioner's second habeas petition, to vacate his convictions, and to order a new trial: whether disclosure of a witness' falsity to defense counsel satisfies a prosecutor's duty under Napue and Giglio to correct a witness' false testimony is a case specific determination to be made in view of certain factors, includ- ing whether the prosecutor or the defense elicits the false testimony, whether and how the prosecutor adopts and uses the false testimony, the importance of the witness and his or her false testimony to the state's case, whether and to what effect defense counsel tries to impeach the witness or whether counsel has a clear tactical reason for not doing so, and whether the truth ultimately is revealed to the jury; considering the relevant factors in light of the record, this court determined that defense counsel's actual or constructive notice of the cooperation agree- ments was insufficient to satisfy the prosecutor's obligations under Napue and Giglio, as the prosecutor directly solicited the false testimony of S and V, who were the state's key witnesses, defense counsel attempted to elicit the details and results of any cooperation agreements on cross-examination but was met with further denials by S and V, and the prosecutor not only failed to correct the false testimony during closing argument but also affirmatively vouched for the credibility of V and invited the jury to decide the case on the basis of V's credibility; moreover, the respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, conceded that the violation of the petitioner's due process rights was material because the state's case against him was not overwhelming without the testimony of S and V. (One justice concurring separately) Argued October 23, 2019—officially released June 29, 2020

The plaintiff, D Co., sought, inter alia, to recover damages from the defendant for breach of contract in connection with D Co.'s purchase of the defen- dant's fluorine chemical business and related equipment. The parties had previously entered into an asset purchase agreement, governed by New York law, pursuant to which the defendant agreed to indemnify D Co. for any losses arising from a breach of the defendant's representa- tions and warranties relating to prior and ongoing compliance with various laws in connection with the operation of the defendant's plant. The agreement's notice provision provided that notice and other commu- nications under the agreement must be sent to the defendant's general counsel with a simultaneous copy to the defendant's outside counsel. Following the purchase of the business, D Co. requested reimbursement, pursuant to the agreement's indemnification provisions, to cure several alleged deficiencies, but the parties ultimately were unable to settle their differences. Thereafter, C Co. was substituted as the plaintiff. At trial, the defendant claimed that D Co. had failed to provide notice in accordance with the provisions of the agreement because D Co. had communicated with the defendant's associate general counsel but not the defendant's general counsel, and New York law required strict com- pliance with notice provisions in a commercial contract. C Co. claimed that New York law did not require strict compliance and that the commu- nications between the parties to the agreement provided actual notice to the defendant. The trial court rendered judgment for the defendant, concluding, inter alia, that D Co. had failed to provide proper notice in accordance with the agreement, and C Co. appealed. Held that the trial court improperly rendered judgment for the defendant on the ground that D Co. had failed to strictly comply with the notice provision of the asset purchase agreement: although a time limitation provision in the agreement provided that the defendant would not be liable for a breach of representations or warranties ''unless'' D Co. notified the defendant of such a claim in writing within four years of the closing date, that provision merely set a time limitation for bringing a claim for indemnifi- cation, as it did not contain unmistakable language conditioning indemni- fication on compliance with precise notice procedures; moreover, New York law does not require strict compliance with a commercial contract's notice provision when the other party to the contract receives actual notice and is not prejudiced by the lack of strict compliance, and, although D Co. did not strictly comply with the agreement's notice provision, it was clear from the trial court's factual findings and the record, including testimony by D Co.'s plant manager that he had regu- larly discussed the deficiencies and corresponded with various employ- ees of the defendant on the subject, e-mail correspondence between the parties, and a detailed claims list chart, prepared by the defendant's associate general counsel, summarizing the parties' positions on various deficiencies at the plant, that the defendant was aware that D Co. was seeking indemnification and, thus, had actual notice of D Co.'s claims, and the defendant did not claim that it was prejudiced as a result of D Co.'s failure to strictly comply with the notice provision. Argued November 19, 2019—officially released July 2, 2020

Convicted of two counts each of the crimes of assault in the first degree as a principal and assault in the first degree as an accessory, among other crimes, in connection with the stabbings of the victims, T and R, the defendant appealed to the Appellate Court, claiming that his convictions of assault in the first degree as both a principal and an accessory as to T and R violated the prohibition against double jeopardy under the United States constitution. During a fight in a parking lot involving the defendant, the defendant's brother, E, and T and R, the defendant and E each stabbed T at least once, and R was stabbed two or three times, at least once by the defendant. Upon realizing that he had been stabbed, T departed for the hospital, and the defendant and E walked away from the area where the fight occurred to another area of the parking lot. After a brief break, R approached the defendant and E, made a comment, and turned away, and the defendant and E then ran after R. E stabbed R in the back, causing him to fall and tumble to a grassy area adjacent to the parking lot. The defendant then approached R and stabbed him in the chest, stating, ''that's for hitting [E].'' On appeal, the Appellate Court concluded that the defendant's double jeop- ardy claim failed because his multiple punishments for assault as to each victim were premised on distinct repetitions of the same crime rather than on a single criminal act. On the granting of certification, the defendant appealed to this court, claiming that his principal and accessory convictions stemmed from one continuous course of conduct as to each victim and, therefore, that each set of assault convictions as to T and R violated the double jeopardy clause's prohibition against the imposition of multiple punishments for the same offense. Held: 1. This court determined that, because Connecticut law treats the commis- sion of a substantive crime as a principal and the commission of that same substantive crime as an accessory as alternative means of commit- ting the same substantive crime, they arise under the same substantive criminal statute for purposes of the double jeopardy inquiry, and the proper inquiry when a defendant is convicted of multiple violations of the same substantive criminal statute is whether the legislature intended to punish the individual acts separately or to punish the course of action that they constitute; moreover, because neither the language nor the legislative history of the substantive criminal statute (§ 53a-59 (a) (1)) under which the defendant was convicted indicated whether the legisla- ture intended to punish individual assaultive acts separately or to punish only the course of action that those acts constitute, this court resolved that ambiguity by applying the rule of lenity to avoid turning a single transaction into multiple offenses and, accordingly, interpreted § 53a- 59 (a) (1) as embracing a course of conduct offense; furthermore, in determining whether the defendant engaged in distinct courses of con- duct and, thus, separately punishable assaults as to T and R, this court considered the amount of time separating the assaultive acts, whether the acts occurred at different locations, the defendant's intent or motiva- tion behind the acts, and whether any intervening events occurred between the acts, such that the defendant had the opportunity to recon- sider his actions. 2. The Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that the defendant's conviction of and punishment for assault in the first degree as a principal and assault in the first degree as an accessory as to T did not violate the double jeopardy clause, as the defendant's assaultive acts against T were part of the same continuing course of conduct, and, accordingly, this court reversed the judgment of the Appellate Court insofar as it upheld the defendant's conviction of assault in the first degree as an accessory as to T: there was a single, uninterrupted fight in which the defendant and E both stabbed T in a discrete area of the parking lot, all of T's stab wounds were inflicted within seconds of each other, and there was no evidence of a break in the fight with T or any other intervening event separating one stabbing of T from another that would have afforded the defendant an opportunity to reconsider his actions and to formulate the intent to commit an additional assault; moreover, the actus rei underlying both of the defendant's assault convictions as to T were the same because the conduct that, according to the state, intentionally aided E in the commission of the assault, namely, the defendant's participation in the fight with a knife, either by stabbing T and R or through his armed presence, was the very same conduct that constituted the defendant's commission of the crime of assault as a principal. 3. The Appellate Court properly upheld the defendant's conviction of assault in the first degree as a principal and assault in the first degree as an accessory as to R, as the defendant's stabbings of R constituted two distinct courses of assaultive conduct: after the defendant inflicted at least one initial stab wound on R, the defendant and E walked away from R and to a different area of the parking lot, no blows were exchanged during the interlude, and this break afforded the defendant an opportunity to reconsider his actions and to formulate a distinct criminal intent; moreover, when the fight resumed after R approached the defendant and E, the defendant's final stabbing of R in the grassy area next to the parking lot was distinct both geographically and tempo- rally from the first series of stabbings that occurred before the break in the fight, and the defendant's declaration that the final stabbing of R was ''for hitting [E]'' suggested the defendant's formulation of a new criminal intent that was separate and distinct from the intent behind the defendant's initial stabbing of R; furthermore, the defendant's convic- tion as a principal did not categorically preclude his conviction as an accessory for the same substantive crime, as multiple convictions of the same offense are permissible under the double jeopardy clause, as long as each conviction is based on distinct acts or transactions that constitute separately completed units of prosecution under the statute in question, and, in the present case, the defendant's stabbings of R constituted two distinct courses of conduct under § 53a-59 (a) (1). Argued November 20, 2019—officially released July 9, 2020

Convicted of the crimes of assault of a disabled person in the third degree and disorderly conduct, the defendant appealed to the Appellate Court, claiming, inter alia, that the trial court had violated his constitutional right to counsel when it permitted him to represent himself during the pretrial stage of the proceedings without obtaining a valid waiver of that right. The Appellate Court affirmed the defendant's conviction, and the defendant, on the granting of certification, appealed to this court. Held: 1. The Appellate Court correctly concluded that the trial court had not abused its discretion in determining that the defendant's waiver of his right to counsel during the pretrial stage of the proceedings was knowing, intelligent and voluntary: the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the defendant understood the nature of the charges against him, as the court, during its canvass of the defendant, ascertained that he was literate and had graduated high school, recited each of the charged offenses and the minimum and maximum penalties associated with them, and asked the defendant whether he understood the charges and penalties, to which he replied in the affirmative; moreover, the defendant could not prevail on his claim that his waiver was constitution- ally inadequate because the trial court did not make him aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation, as the court pointedly questioned the defendant regarding his familiarity with the laws and rules of procedure for criminal trials, and explained that it would not be able to advise him if he proceeded as a self-represented party and that he would be expected to follow all of the rules and procedures applicable to attorneys, and the defendant acknowledged that he had the education, experience and skill to represent himself, and insisted on exercising his right to do so. 2. Contrary to the defendant's claim, the trial court's failure to canvass him regarding his right to counsel during arraignment and plea negotiations was not structural error and, therefore, was subject to harmless error analysis, and any error on the part of the trial court in failing to so canvass the defendant was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt: there was no structural error, as the defendant's rejection of the state's plea offer during negotiations prior to his being canvassed by the court did not affect the framework within which the trial proceeded, the alleged error, which occurred during a distinct portion of the proceedings and was readily identifiable, did not pervade the trial or otherwise affect the deliberations of the jury, the defendant did not contend that anything occurred during the approximate five month period between his arraign- ment and his eventual, proper canvass that was used against him at trial or that he made any irreversible decisions regarding trial strategies during these stages of the proceedings, and, because the state was open to negotiation even after the defendant was properly canvassed, the defendant's ability to enter into a plea agreement was not irretrievably lost; moreover, any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, as the record demonstrated that the defendant had the opportunity to continue plea negotiations with the state after validly waiving his right to counsel, and, because the defendant never asked the state if he could still accept its prior plea offer, his rejection of that offer without the benefit of counsel or a proper canvass did not contribute to the ver- dict obtained. Argued October 18, 2019—officially released July 15, 2020

The respondent mother appealed to the Appellate Court from the judgment of the trial court, which denied her motion for reinstatement of guardian- ship rights with respect to her minor child, Z. The respondent had voluntarily agreed to relinquish temporary guardianship of Z to Z's mater- nal aunt, the petitioner. Subsequently, when the respondent requested that the petitioner return Z to her care, the petitioner filed in the Probate Court a petition for immediate, temporary custody of Z and an applica- tion for the removal of the respondent as the guardian of Z. The Probate Court issued an order vesting the petitioner with immediate, temporary custody of Z. Thereafter, the case was transferred to the Superior Court, where the parties entered into a stipulated agreement, pursuant to which the court transferred guardianship of Z to the petitioner but ordered limited visitation between Z and the respondent. Subsequently, the respondent filed her motion for reinstatement. In denying the respon- dent's motion and granting a separate motion filed by Z's guardian ad litem to suspend overnight visitation with the respondent, the trial court found that the respondent was capable of adequately providing for Z and that there had never been a judicial adjudication of neglect or abuse of Z but nevertheless concluded, on the basis of a fair preponderance of the evidence, that reinstatement of the respondent's guardianship rights was not in Z's best interests. On appeal to the Appellate Court, the respondent claimed, inter alia, that the trial court violated her federal constitutional right to the care and custody of Z in denying her motion for reinstatement without finding that she was unfit and without finding by clear and convincing evidence that Z would be at a substantial risk of harm if guardianship were terminated. Thereafter, the Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the respondent could not prevail on her unpreserved claim under the third prong of State v. Golding (213 Conn. 233) because the petitioner and Z, through his guardian ad litem, rebutted the constitutional presumption that reunifi- cation with the respondent was in Z's best interests. The Appellate Court also concluded that proof by a fair preponderance of the evidence was the applicable standard in a proceeding for reinstatement of guardian- ship. On the granting of certification, the respondent appealed to this court, claiming that she was entitled to a presumption that reinstatement was in the best interests of Z and to a heightened standard of proof. Held that a parent seeking reinstatement of guardianship pursuant to statute (§ 45a-611), who has demonstrated that the factors that resulted in the parent's removal as guardian have been resolved satisfactorily, is entitled to a rebuttable, constitutional presumption that reinstatement is in the best interests of the child, a third party seeking to rebut that presumption must do so by clear and convincing evidence, and, because it was unclear whether the trial court applied this presumption, and because that court applied the preponderance of the evidence standard, the judgment of the Appellate Court was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings: this court previously concluded in In re Juvenile Appeal (Anonymous) (177 Conn. 648) that parents of a child committed to the state youth and children services agency are entitled to a presumption, in the absence of a continuing cause for commitment, that revocation of such commitment will be in the child's best interests, and it found that conclusion to be equally applicable to reinstatement of guardianship proceedings; moreover, this court con- cluded, after weighing the factors set forth in Mathews v. Eldridge (424 U.S. 319), that due process requires a third party seeking to rebut the presumption that reinstatement of guardianship is in the child's best interests to do so by clear and convincing evidence, as the application of that heightened standard of proof in this context most appropriately balances the parent's interest in the companionship, care, custody and management of his or her child, and the interest of the child in safety and consistency, as well as not being dislocated from the emotional attachments that derive from the intimacy of daily association with his or her parent; furthermore, application of the clear and convincing standard in this context serves to reduce the risk of error, the cost of which is significant given the weight of the private interests at stake, and serves the interests of the state in protecting the welfare of the child, reducing the cost and burden of guardianship proceedings, and ensuring that such proceedings are conducted fairly. Argued May 2, 2019—officially released July 22, 2020

Convicted of assault in the third degree, the defendant appealed to the Appellate Court, claiming that the trial court improperly had declined to instruct the jury on the defense of personal property with respect to the assault charge. The victim, who had been romantically involved with the defendant, visited with the defendant during a gathering at his mother's apartment. The victim surreptitiously took a set of car keys belonging to the defendant's mother from that apartment and began to walk home. The victim threw the keys into a bush along her route home, and, shortly thereafter, the defendant emerged from a car, physically attacked her, rummaged through her backpack for his mother's keys, and left the area with the backpack. At trial, the defendant filed a written request to charge, seeking an instruction on the defense of personal property pursuant to statute (§ 53a-21). The trial court held a formal charging conference, and defense counsel did not voice any concern with respect to the court's draft instructions, which limited the defense of personal property instruction to the charge of second degree robbery, of which the defendant was found not guilty. The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of conviction, concluding, inter alia, that the defendant's written request to charge was insufficient to preserve his claim that the trial court improperly failed to instruct the jury on the defense of personal property with respect to the assault charge and that the defendant implicitly waived appellate review of that claim under State v. Kitchens (299 Conn. 447). On the granting of certification, the defendant appealed to this court. Held: 1. The Appellate Court correctly concluded that the defendant's claim of instructional error was unpreserved: the trial court clearly believed that it had satisfied the defendant's written request to charge on the defense of personal property, as that court granted the request without qualifica- tion, provided multiple drafts of its instructions to the parties, and expressly reviewed the proposed defense of personal property instruc- tion with counsel during a formal charging conference, and this court could not conclude that the trial court and the state were given fair notice of the fact that the defendant took issue with this particular aspect of its instructions on assault; moreover, although the applicable rule of practice (§ 42-16) allows a defendant to preserve a claim of instructional error by filing a written request to charge or by taking an exception on the record, the information conveyed in connection with either of these alternatives must be specific enough to afford the trial court and the state fair notice of the defect subsequently claimed on appeal, and the record contained no indication that the defense ever brought to the trial court's attention that the charge on the defense of personal property should have been given with respect to the assault charge. 2. The Appellate Court correctly concluded that the defendant waived his unpreserved claim of instructional error: the trial court granted the defendant's request to charge without qualification, expressly indicating that it intended to incorporate that request in its proposed instructions, the court then drafted its charge, distributed copies to counsel, and reviewed the language it had proposed on the defense of personal prop- erty during a formal charging conference, during which the court high- lighted the location of the relevant instruction and discussed the content of the instruction with counsel, and, throughout the proceedings, the defense did not voice any concern regarding the location, scope or structure of that particular charge; accordingly, the defendant, through counsel, engaged in conduct demonstrating his assent to the manner in which the court incorporated his request to charge; moreover, the defendant possessed a tactical reason not to pursue a defense of personal property instruction with respect to the charge of assault, as the defen- dant's testimony was that the victim was the aggressor and that any contact between them was merely the result of his attempts to escape, and, thus, the defendant could reasonably have decided to forgo the defense of personal property instruction with respect to the assault charge because his account of the events would have been conceptually inconsistent with a claim that he had intentionally, but justifiably, used force against the victim to regain possession of the car keys. Argued May 6—officially released July 28, 2020

The plaintiffs sought damages from the defendant, the town of Branford, for, inter alia, breach of contract in connection with the plaintiffs' unsuc- cessful attempt to lease a shellfishing ground in Branford known as lot 511. The plaintiffs had entered into an agreement with the town's Shell- fish Commission under which the plaintiffs agreed to share information with the commission about potential shellfishing grounds in exchange for the right of first refusal to lease lot 511. Thereafter, when one of the plaintiffs' competitors applied to lease lot 511, the plaintiffs exercised their right of first refusal, but the commission leased the lot to the plaintiffs' competitor. The town moved for summary judgment on the ground that the right of first refusal was not a valid or enforceable contract because the commission lacked the authority to enter into an agreement in view of the provision of the Branford Town Code (§ 88- 8) providing that no lease of shellfishing grounds ''owned by'' the town shall be permitted without the approval of the town's Board of Select- men. The trial court granted the town's motion, concluding, inter alia, that, pursuant to § 88-8 of the town code, the Board of Selectmen, and not the commission, had the authority to approve any lease of shellfishing grounds located in Branford and that there was no evidence that the Board of Selectmen had approved the agreement between the plaintiffs and the commission. On appeal, the plaintiffs claimed, inter alia, that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to who owned lot 511, which affected whether the Board of Selectmen was required to approve the lease under § 88-8 of the town code. The plaintiffs contended that the phrase ''owned by'' in § 88-8 limited the authority of the Board of Select- men to lease shellfishing grounds to only those grounds owned by the town and that the town presented no evidence regarding whether it owned lot 511. Held that the trial court improperly granted the town's motion for summary judgment, as there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the town ''owned'' lot 511 and, thus, whether the commission had the authority to lease lot 511 to the plaintiffs under § 88-8 of the town code: under the particular, technical definition of the phrase ''owned by'' in § 88-8, as established by case law concerning the public trust doctrine, the town owned lot 511 only if it held title to a grant of the private rights to the lot, and the town, having advanced no evidence that it had been granted private rights to lot 511, did not meet its burden of establishing that it owned lot 511 within the meaning of § 88-8 of the town code; moreover, the town's assertion that the phrase, ''shellfishing grounds owned by Branford,'' in § 88-8 must refer to all shellfishing grounds for which the town controlled the proprietary rights to cultivate and harvest shellfish was unreasonable because to interpret ''own'' to mean ''control'' was contrary to its plain meaning, both under its dictionary definition and this court's case law discussing the particular meaning of the word in the context of the public trust doctrine, as the phrase to ''own'' shellfishing grounds means to hold legal title to the private rights to those grounds. Argued February 25—officially released July 29, 2020

Pursuant to statute ((Rev. to 2013) § 53-39a), ''[w]henever, in any prosecution of an officer of the Division of State Police . . . or a local police depart- ment for a crime allegedly committed by such officer in the course of his duty as such, the charge is dismissed or the officer is found not guilty, such officer shall be indemnified by his employing governmental unit for economic loss sustained by him as a result of such prosecu- tion . . . .'' The plaintiff, who had been a member of a special police force maintained by the defendant state of Connecticut for Eastern Connecticut State University, sought, pursuant to statute ((Rev. to 2013) § 53-39a), indemni- fication from the state for economic losses that he allegedly had incurred as a result of federal criminal charges filed against him, but that ulti- mately were dismissed, for alleged misconduct while he was a member of that special police force. The state filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, claiming that members of a university's special police force do not fall within the class of individuals who are expressly authorized to bring an action against the state pursuant to § 53-39a. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, concluding that a member of a university's special police force did fall under the category of a member of a local police department, as that term is used in § 53- 39a. The trial court subsequently denied the state's motion for summary judgment, in which the state renewed its claim that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Thereafter, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to liability only and, after a hearing in damages, rendered judgment for the plaintiff, from which the state appealed to the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court reversed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the trial court incorrectly determined that the plaintiff was authorized to bring the present action pursuant to § 53-39a. The Appellate Court reasoned that the legislature did not intend to include members of a university's special police force within the definition of ''local police department,'' as used in § 53-39a, because the legislature's explicit inclusion of members of some police forces within the limited jurisdictional authority in the language of the statute indicated that its failure to specifically mention members of a university's special police force was intentional. The Appellate Court noted that the university's special police force was created pursuant to a statute ((Rev. to 2013) § 10a-142) that provides that such a force has some, but not all, of the duties, responsibilities and authority of local police departments, limitations that provided further indication that the legislature under- stood a university's special police force to be a separate and distinct entity from a local police department. The Appellate Court further noted that § 10a-142 (e) contains an indemnification provision applicable only to members of a university's special police force, indicating that the legislature did not intend the more general provisions of § 53-39a to apply to such members. On the granting of certification, the plaintiff appealed to this court. Held that the Appellate Court correctly deter- mined that a member of a university's special police force is not a member of a local police department entitled to indemnification under § 53-39a, and, because that court's well reasoned decision correctly resolved the issue on which certification was granted, any further analy- sis regarding the interpretation of § 53-39a served no useful purpose; moreover, the legislative history of a 2017 amendment to § 53-39a, which eliminated the phrase ''local police department'' and added the phrase ''any member of a law enforcement unit,'' indicated that the change was not clarifying in nature and, thus, one that would retroactively apply to the plaintiff, but, instead, was a subsequent, substantive change; furthermore, there was no indication that the legislature enacted the 2017 amendment in direct response to any judicial decision that the legislature deemed incorrect, as the trial court had not yet rendered judgment in the present case when that amendment was enacted. Argued January 13—officially released August 3, 2020

Convicted of the crimes of capital felony, murder, felony murder, sexual assault in the first degree, kidnapping in the first degree, and burglary in the first degree in connection with the stabbing and strangulation of the victim in her apartment, the defendant appealed to this court. The police arrested the defendant when his DNA profile was matched to DNA taken from the victim's vaginal swab, and, after the defendant was confronted with that evidence, he gave the police a written confession. Evidence presented at trial established that a second, unidentified male also contributed to the DNA on the victim's vaginal swab, and unidenti- fied male DNA also was discovered on the doorframe of the victim's bedroom and in saliva found on the victim's shoulder. Prior to the defendant's trial, P, a jailhouse informant who was incarcerated with the defendant, wrote a letter to W, a detective with the Hartford Police Department, indicating that he had information about the defendant that would be useful to W and referencing an unrelated criminal case pending against the defendant. W subsequently met with P at the prison, where they discussed the defendant's involvement in the victim's death, whether P might receive a benefit for providing additional information, and whether P would be willing to wear a wire. When W did not contact P again after the meeting, P informed the defendant of the meeting, and the defendant devised a ruse intended to undermine W's credibility in anticipation of W's testimony at trial. A few days before the state was to rest its case, P contacted W and informed W of the defendant's ruse, and the state notified the defense that it intended to call P as a witness. The defendant filed a motion to suppress P's testimony, which the trial court denied, concluding that P had not been acting as an agent of the state when he elicited information from the defendant. Thereafter, the defendant requested an instruction on third-party culpability in connec- tion with the presence of the unidentified male DNA found in and on the victim's body and at the crime scene, but the trial court declined to give that instruction. On appeal from the judgment of conviction, the defendant claimed that the state violated his sixth amendment right to counsel by using P as an agent to deliberately elicit incriminating statements from the defendant, there was insufficient evidence to sup- port his conviction of burglary in the first degree, and the trial court improperly declined to provide a third-party culpability instruction to the jury in light of the unidentified male DNA discovered in and on the victim's body and at the crime scene. Held: 1. The trial court improperly denied the defendant's motion to suppress P's testimony in violation of the defendant's sixth amendment right to counsel because P was acting as an agent of the state when he deliber- ately elicited incriminating statements from the defendant, and, accord- ingly, the judgment of conviction was reversed and the case was remanded for a new trial: although there was no express or formal agreement between P and W, in light of the totality of the circumstances, P's efforts to elicit incriminating statements from the defendant were fairly attributable to the state, as the meeting between P and W empha- sized what useful, incriminating information P might obtain as a result of his future assistance and specifically focused on P's efforts to obtain information from the defendant, possibly through wearing a wire or by other means, about his specific involvement in the victim's death rather than his involvement in unrelated criminal cases; moreover, P and W discussed P's interest in receiving a benefit in exchange for his coopera- tion, W indicated that the state's attorney would have to approve any such deal, and, after P testified at the defendant's trial, the state in fact provided P with his desired benefit by agreeing not to object to P's attempt to secure a sentence modification, which P and W had discussed during their meeting; furthermore, the psychological pressures inherent in confinement, along with P's lengthy consecutive sentences, provided P with a strong incentive to cooperate with the state, W never directed P to cease eliciting information from the defendant or to avoid conversa- tions with the defendant until the state's attorney had approved of P's cooperation with W, and the state either knew or should have known that W's meeting with P was likely to result in further elicitation of information from the defendant. (One justice concurring in part and dissenting in part) 2.This court declined the defendant's invitation to overrule its holding in State v. Allen (216 Conn. 367), and, accordingly, the defendant could not prevail on his claim that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he remained unlawfully in the victim's apartment for purposes of his conviction of burglary in the first degree; contrary to the defendant's assertion that Allen improperly conflates the burglary elements of intent and unlawful remaining, that case stands for the narrow proposition that the state may prove an unlawful remaining on the premises, for purposes of first degree burglary, by proffering evidence that a defendant has engaged in conduct on the premises that was likely to terrorize the occupants, and the defendant advanced no argument that his conduct in the victim's apartment was unlikely to terrorize the victim; moreover, this court's narrow reading of Allen was bolstered insofar as the Appel- late Court has consistently restricted its application of Allen to cases in which the state has presented evidence that the defendant engaged in conduct likely to terrorize occupants, and the fact that the legislative history of recent amendments to the burglary statutes strongly indicated that the legislature has acquiesced in this court's decision in Allen coun- seled strongly against overruling Allen in favor of a more restrictive statutory interpretation of the relevant statutory ((Rev. to 2001) §§ 53a- 100 (b) and 53a-101 (a) (2)) language; furthermore, variations among jurisdictions with respect to the law of burglary and license to remain did not justify departing from the weighty considerations attendant to stare decisis. 3. The trial court abused its discretion by declining to provide a third-party culpability instruction to the jury, as the defendant established a direct connection between a third person and the charged offenses; the evi- dence reasonably supported an instruction on third-party culpability, as unidentified male DNA was recovered directly from the victim's body and from the blood covered doorframe of her bedroom, rather than from the periphery of the crime scene, and the DNA on the victim's shoulder would have existed only for a limited duration and was not otherwise explained by the record. Argued April 29, 2019—officially released August 6, 2020

The respondent mother appealed from the order of the trial court denying a request for visitation with her minor child subsequent to the court's termination of her parental rights with respect to that child. The court had terminated the respondent's parental rights pursuant to statute (§ 17a-112), finding that she had abandoned the child, that she had failed to achieve a degree of personal rehabilitation such that she could resume a responsible position in the child's life, and that termination was in the best interest of the child. During the termination proceedings, the child's counsel had requested that the court consider issuing an order of posttermination or postadoption visitation between the child and the respondent, who agreed with that request. The court denied the request for visitation, concluding, inter alia, that it lacked the authority to evalu- ate whether posttermination visitation would be necessary or appro- priate to secure the welfare, protection, proper care and suitable support of the child in accordance with the statute (§ 46b-121 (b) (1)) affording courts certain authority in juvenile matters. On appeal from the trial court's order denying the request for posttermination visitation, the respondent claimed, inter alia, that the trial court incorrectly concluded that it lacked authority to order posttermination visitation. The peti- tioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families, claimed on appeal that this court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and that the appeal should therefore be dismissed. The petitioner specifically asserted that the respondent was not aggrieved by the trial court's order, that the visitation issue became moot when the court terminated the respon- dent's parental rights, and that the respondent lacked standing to appeal because she failed to appeal from or seek or obtain a stay of the judgment terminating her parental rights. Held: 1. The respondent was aggrieved by the trial court's order denying the request for posttermination visitation: the respondent had a specific personal and legal interest in the subject matter of the decision, as she was a party to the underlying litigation who had requested that the court act pursuant to its common-law authority; moreover, the respondent suffered an injury as a result of the court's decision, and the court's termination of her parental rights did not eliminate the potential harm of being denied posttermination visitation with the child. 2. The petitioner could not prevail on her claim that the issue of posttermina- tion visitation was rendered moot by virtue of the trial court's termina- tion of the respondent's parental rights, as a live controversy existed between the petitioner and the respondent as to whether the trial court lacked authority to order posttermination visitation, the interests of the parties were adverse, this court was capable of adjudicating whether the trial court had authority to order posttermination visitation, and a determination regarding the issue could result in practical relief for the respondent; moreover, no intervening circumstance had arisen during the pendency of the appeal that resolved the issue of posttermination visitation or rendered it insignificant. 3. The respondent did not lack standing to appeal from the trial court's posttermination visitation order on the ground that she did not appeal from or seek or obtain a stay of the judgment terminating her parental rights: the respondent was not required to seek or obtain a stay of the termination judgment because she did not seek to delay enforcement of that judgment, and requiring her to seek or obtain such a stay would serve no purpose, as her acceptance of the trial court's determination that termination was in the child's best interest did not foreclose the possibility that posttermination visitation might potentially be appro- priate to secure the child's welfare, protection, proper care and suitable support; moreover, requiring the respondent to seek a stay would encour- age further litigation, waste judicial resources, and thwart the goal of ensuring the welfare of the child, and the controversy centered exclu- sively on whether the trial court had the authority to order posttermina- tion visitation between the respondent and the child. 4. The trial court incorrectly concluded that it lacked the authority to order posttermination visitation: the trial court had the authority under § 46b- 121 (b) (1) to issue a posttermination visitation order, as long as it found such visitation necessary or appropriate to secure the child's welfare, the scope of the statute extended to adults who owed some legal duty to the child and was not limited to biological parents, the statute did not expressly abrogate the court's authority to regulate visitation, and case law and the statute's lack of limiting language supported the court's authority to issue an order of posttermination visitation; moreover § 17- 112a (b) through (h), which the trial court relied on to deny posttermina- tion visitation, and which was intended by the legislature to accomplish cooperative postadoption agreements between genetic parents and intended adoptive parents, did not abrogate or limit the trial court's common-law authority, as codified in § 46b-121 (b) (1), to order postter- mination visitation, as § 17a-112 (b) through (h) applied to only a narrow subset of termination proceedings, rather than the wide range of termina- tion circumstances that included those in the present case. 5. The petitioner could not prevail on her claim that the trial court's denial of posttermination visitation should be upheld on the alternative ground that the court correctly determined that such visitation would not be in the child's best interest, as the trial court, having believed that it lacked authority to order visitation, declined to consider whether visita- tion would be necessary or appropriate to secure the welfare, protection, proper care and suitable support for the child in accordance with § 46b- 121 (b) (1); accordingly, the trial court's order denying the request for visitation was reversed and the case was remanded for a dispositional hearing at which the trial court is to consider the merits of ordering visita- tion. (One justice concurring separately) Argued May 4—officially released August 10, 2020

Pursuant to a provision of the Workers' Compensation Act (§ 31-291), ''[w]hen any principal employer procures any work to be done wholly or in part for him by a contractor, or through him by a subcontractor, and the work so procured to be done is a part or process in the trade or business of such principal employer, and is performed in, on or about premises under his control, such principal employer shall be liable to pay all compensation . . . to the same extent as if the work were done without the intervention of such contractor or subcontractor.'' The defendants city of Bridgeport and its insurer, P Co., appealed from the decision of the Compensation Review Board, which affirmed the decision of the Workers' Compensation Commissioner, who had found that the city was the plaintiff's principal employer and, therefore, liable for the plaintiff's workers' compensation benefits. The plaintiff had been employed by H Co., an uninsured subcontractor of the city, when he was injured while doing repair work to the roof of the city's transfer facility. The plaintiff sought workers' compensation benefits, and, fol- lowing a hearing, the commissioner found that, because he was an employee of an uninsured subcontractor when he suffered his compensa- ble injury, the Second Injury Fund was statutorily (§ 31-355) required to pay his workers' compensation benefits. The Second Injury Fund subsequently contested liability on the ground that, pursuant to § 31- 291, the city was the plaintiff's principal employer when he suffered his injury and, therefore, was required to pay the workers' compensation benefits owed to him. Following additional hearings, the commissioner determined that, under Massolini v. Driscoll (114 Conn. 546), a munici- pality can be held liable as a principal employer under § 31-291, that the city had a statutory (§ 7-148) duty to manage, maintain, and repair its property, including the transfer facility, and that repairing the transfer facility's roof was a part or process in the city's trade or business within the meaning of § 31-291. Accordingly, the commissioner found that the city was the plaintiff's principal employer and ordered the city and P Co. to pay his workers' compensation benefits. The city and P Co. appealed to the board, which affirmed the commissioner's decision. Thereafter, the city and P Co. appealed to the Appellate Court, which upheld the board's decision. On the granting of certification, the city and P Co. appealed to this court. Held that the Appellate Court correctly concluded that, under § 31-291, the city was liable as the plaintiff's principal employer for workers' compensation benefits to which he was entitled as a result of the injuries he sustained repairing the roof of the city's transfer facility while employed by the city's uninsured subcontrac- tor: whether an uninsured contractor's or subcontractor's work is a part or process in the trade or business of the principal employer under § 31-291 is a fact specific determination to be made in light of certain nondispositive factors, including the employer's legally defined powers and obligations, the complexity of the work being performed and the degree of specialization required, whether the employer supplied the tools or materials or oversaw the work, and whether the work was of such a character that it ordinarily would be performed by the employer's own employees or was an otherwise essential part in the maintenance or operation of the employer's business; considering the relevant factors in light of the record, as well as § 31-291's broader remedial purpose of preventing employers from denying workers full protection under the workers' compensation scheme by simply hiring uninsured contractors or subcontractors, this court concluded that the commissioner reason- ably determined that the repair of the transfer facility's roof was a part or process in the city's trade or business, as it was undisputed that the city was responsible pursuant to § 7-148 to maintain and repair its public buildings, the roof repairs at issue were not especially complex and did not demand specialized skills, and, although the city did not employ its own roofers for financial reasons despite employing a variety of other tradespeople to maintain and repair city property, the roof repair fell within the nature and scope of the maintenance and repair work ordi- narily performed by city employees; moreover, this court declined the city and P Co.'s invitation to overrule Massolini insofar as it applies principal employer liability to municipalities, as that case's holding has, over the past eighty years, become embedded in Connecticut worker's compensation law, and the city and P Co. did not identify any ambiguity in the statutory scheme or any legislative history suggesting that the legislature intended to abrogate this court's holding in Massolini or to change the standards of principal employer liability through the creation of the Second Injury Fund, a primary purpose of which is, instead, to act as a payer of last resort when an employer is unable to pay. (Three justices dissenting in one opinion) Argued October 22, 2019—officially released August 13, 2020

Pursuant to statute (§ 49-1), ''[t]he foreclosure of a mortgage is a bar to any further action upon the mortgage debt, note or obligation against the person or persons who are liable for the payment thereof . . . .'' Pursuant further to statute (§ 49-14 (a)), however, ''[a]t any time within thirty days after the time limited for redemption has expired, any party to a mortgage foreclosure may file a motion seeking a deficiency judgment.'' The plaintiff bank sought to foreclose a mortgage on certain of the defen- dants' real property after they had defaulted on a loan that had been modified by agreement. The trial court rendered a judgment of strict foreclosure, from which the defendants appealed to the Appellate Court. While the appeal was pending and the defendants were still occupying the property, the trial court granted the plaintiff's motion for equitable relief and ordered the defendants to reimburse the plaintiff for future property taxes and homeowners insurance premiums that the plaintiff would pay during the pending appeal. The defendants filed an amended appeal with the Appellate Court, which affirmed the trial court's judg- ment of strict foreclosure and determined that the trial court's order relating to tax and insurance premium reimbursements was not an abuse of discretion. On the granting of certification, the defendants appealed to this court. Held: 1. The trial court abused its discretion by ordering the defendants to make monetary payments to the plaintiff outside of a deficiency judgment pursuant to § 49-14, and, accordingly, the Appellate Court improperly upheld that order: by pursuing strict foreclosure, the plaintiff elected to take absolute title to the property, a remedy in rem, and to pursue any remaining debt through the procurement of a deficiency judgment, a remedy in personam; moreover, because a deficiency judgment was the exclusive procedure by which the plaintiff could obtain a remedy in personam from the defendants in the context of strict foreclosure, and because the trial court's order requiring the defendants to reimburse the plaintiff for future taxes and insurance premiums was a remedy in personam insofar as it operated on the defendants personally with respect to other property owned by them and settled a dispute by imposing a personal liability or obligation on them in favor of the plain- tiff, the trial court's order was improper. 2. This court declined to consider the defendants' claim that the trial court should have been disqualified due to certain statements that called that court's impartiality into question; the defendants' disqualification claim was not properly before this court, as the defendants failed to raise the issue at trial or on appeal before the Appellate Court, and the issue was beyond the scope of the certified question. Argued October 21, 2019—officially released August 20, 2020

The plaintiff appealed from the decision of the Compensation Review Board, which affirmed the decision of the Workers' Compensation Commis- sioner awarding the plaintiff benefits pursuant to statute (§ 31-308 (b)) for a 23 percent permanent partial disability on the basis of the functional capacity of his transplanted heart. While employed as a police officer for the named defendant, the city of Milford, the plaintiff was diagnosed with giant cell myocarditis and underwent a heart transplant. The plain- tiff thereafter filed a claim for benefits pursuant to the statute (§ 7-433c) governing compensation for municipal police officers with hypertension or heart disease. The commissioner issued a finding and award, determining that the plaintiff had reached maximum medical improve- ment approximately three years after receiving the transplant and that he was entitled to benefits for a 23 percent permanent partial disability of the transplanted heart. In affirming the commissioner's finding and award, the board concluded that the commissioner had properly consid- ered the function of the transplanted heart in awarding benefits rather than awarding the plaintiff 100 percent permanent partial disability bene- fits on the basis of the removal and complete loss of his native heart. On the plaintiff's appeal from the board's decision, held that the board properly considered the functionality of the transplanted heart after a finding of maximum medical improvement, rather than the total loss of the plaintiff's native heart, in fashioning the specific indemnity award because the plaintiff had not suffered a complete loss of that organ within the meaning of § 31-308 (b): although the language of § 31-308 (b) was ambiguous with respect to whether permanent partial disability benefits were to be based on the complete loss of a native organ or the loss of use of a transplanted organ, the legislative history surrounding § 31-308 (b) evinced an intent to balance the goals of protecting workers and compensating them for their losses with the economic burden placed on employers and insurance companies, and requiring compensation for the complete loss of a native organ, despite a successful transplant surgery that restores the organ's functional capacity, was inconsistent with and would expand the scope of benefits provided by § 31-308 (b) beyond the legislature's intent, and would require the commissioner to disregard the ameliorative effects of the transplant, contrary to this court's well established case law concerning whether a plaintiff has reached maximum medical improvement; moreover, although courts generally do not consider improvements from artificial implants in awarding permanent partial disability benefits, a transplant of live tissue is not akin to a prosthetic device for purposes of § 31-308 (b), and, accordingly, the board properly considered the functional capacity of the plaintiff's transplanted heart rather than deeming the removal of his native heart a 100 percent loss under § 31-308 (b). Argued February 27—officially released August 24, 2020

Pursuant to statute (§ 52-556), ''[a]ny person injured . . . through the negli- gence of any state official or employee when operating a motor vehicle owned and insured by the state against personal injuries . . . shall have a right of action against the state to recover damages for such injury.'' Pursuant further to statute (§ 31-284 (a)), an employer otherwise in compli- ance with § 31-284 ''shall not be liable for any action for damages on account of personal injury sustained by an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment,'' and ''[a]ll rights and claims between [such] an employer . . . [and its] employees, arising out of personal injury . . . sustained in the course of employment are abolished other than rights and claims given by [the Workers' Compensation Act] . . . .'' The plaintiff, a state employee, sought to recover damages from the state for personal injuries she sustained when an uninsured motor vehicle struck a vehicle in which she was a passenger. The vehicle in which the plaintiff was riding was owned and insured by the state and operated by another state employee, T, who was acting in the course of his employment. The plaintiff alleged that T's operation of that vehicle was negligent and that T caused the collision. The state moved to dismiss the claim against it, contending that, because the plaintiff was eligible for and received workers' compensation benefits for her injuries, the state's waiver of sovereign immunity in § 52-556 did not apply to the plaintiff's negligence claim and that the trial court, therefore, lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The court granted the state's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the plaintiff appealed. Held: 1. The trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's action against the state and, accordingly, improperly granted the state's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; contrary to the state's claim, its waiver of sovereign immunity in § 52-556 for claims arising from a state employee's negligent operation of a state owned and insured motor vehicle extends to a litigant, such as the plaintiff, who is a state employee, as the phrase ''[a]ny person'' in § 52-556 signifies that the waiver applies without restriction to persons who are injured under the circumstances specified in that statute. 2. The plaintiff's action against the state was nevertheless barred by the workers' compensation exclusivity provision in § 31-284 (a) because the state's waiver of sovereign immunity pursuant to § 52-556 did not preclude the state from raising its defense to liability under § 31-284 (a), as nothing in § 52-556 expressly provides or otherwise suggests that the state has waived its right to present this, or any other, defense to liability: interpreting § 52-556 to implicitly waive the state's defense under § 31-284 (a) would be inconsistent with the express language of and the public policy principles underlying the workers' compensation exclusivity provision, of which the legislature was undoubtedly aware when it enacted § 52-556, as § 31-284 (a), which predates the enactment of § 52-556, manifests a legislative intent that the remedy available to employees who benefit from workers' compensation should be limited to those benefits and should preclude the right to bring a common-law tort action, and to read § 52-556 to preclude the state from asserting a defense under § 31-284 (a) would expand the rights of state employees beyond those envisioned in the workers' compensation statutory scheme by allowing them to recover damages from the state and to collect workers' compensation benefits, thereby providing them with greater rights than other employees injured in the course of employment; more- over, reading § 52-556 to waive the state's defense under § 31-284 (a) also would be inconsistent with the principle that this court must strictly construe waivers of sovereign immunity, as that interpretation would read the state's consent to jurisdiction in § 52-556 also to waive a defense to liability that is available to private employers, despite the absence of any language or necessary implication in the statute justifying that broad interpretation; accordingly, the form of the trial court's judgment was improper because the court should not have dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction but should have rendered judgment for the state on the merits of its defense under § 31-284 (a). Argued January 13—officially released August 24, 2020

The defendant was convicted of breach of the peace in the second degree in connection with an incident in which he confronted and directed certain comments and racial slurs at M, an African-American parking enforcement officer, who, immediately beforehand, had placed a parking ticket on the defendant's vehicle for being parked in a metered space without payment. Upon returning to his vehicle and finding the parking ticket, the defendant confronted M. After M and the defendant exchanged words, the situation escalated, and the defendant told M that the parking authority with which he was employed was ''fucking unbelievable'' and that he issued the parking ticket because the defendant's car was ''white.'' The defendant then told M that the actual reason he was given a parking ticket was because he was white. As the defendant started to walk away from M, the defendant stated, ''remember Ferguson,'' which apparently was a reference to a then recent and highly publicized shooting of an African-American man by a white police officer in Fergu- son, Missouri. Thereafter, both M and the defendant returned to and entered their vehicles, both of which had at least some of their windows down. M then thought he heard the defendant say the words ''fucking niggers,'' which caused him to believe that the defendant's earlier com- ment about Ferguson was a threat meant to imply that what had hap- pened in Ferguson was going to happen to him. As M was driving away, the defendant cut through the parking lot in his vehicle, approached M's vehicle, and then drove past M. As the defendant was driving past M, he looked directly at M with an angry expression and repeated the slur ''fucking niggers'' louder than he had the first time he uttered it. On appeal to the Appellate Court from the judgment of conviction, the defendant claimed, inter alia, that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his breach of the peace conviction insofar as the racial taunts that he directed at M were protected by the first amendment to the United States constitution and, therefore, could not form the basis of such a conviction. The Appellate Court reversed the defendant's conviction, concluding, inter alia, that the defendant's utterances were unlikely to provoke an immediate, violent response by a reasonable person in M's shoes and, thus, were not prohibited fighting words under the first amendment. On the granting of certification, the state appealed to this court. Held that, contrary to the determination of the Appellate Court, the language the defendant used to demean, intimidate and anger M, when considered in the circumstances in which that language was used, constituted fighting words likely to provoke an immediate, violent response from a reasonable person in M's position, and, accordingly, the first amendment did not prohibit the state's use of the defendant's words to obtain his breach of the peace conviction: the defendant's use of the word ''niggers,'' which is inextricably linked to racial prejudice and oppression, and which, when used by a white person as an assertion of the racial inferiority of an African-American person, is highly offensive and demeaning, his use of the profane adjective ''fucking'' to modify the word ''niggers'' to emphasize his anger, his continued escalation of the confrontation by approaching M while they were in their vehicles, looking at M with an angry expression as he drove by and repeating the words ''fucking niggers,'' and his use of aggressive hand and bodily gestures and other profanities and racially charged innuendos earlier on in the confrontation all served to incite an immediate, violent response by a reasonable person in M's shoes; moreover, although M, like any parking enforcement officer, undoubtedly was aware that some mem- bers of the public might express frustration or anger upon receiving a ticket, and although M did not react violently despite the highly inflam- matory and inciting nature of the defendant's words and conduct, this court disagreed that the average African-American parking official would have been prepared for and responded peaceably to the kind of racial slurs and threatening behavior with which M was confronted; further- more, the fact that the defendant and M were in their vehicles when the defendant used the epithet ''fucking niggers'' was of no consequence, as the two men were in close proximity to and maintained eye contact with each other, so that each could see and hear each other clearly, and M was in a position to pursue the defendant or to retaliate immediately. (Two justices concurring separately in two opinions) Argued March 29, 2019—officially released August 27, 2020

Convicted, after a jury trial, of the crime of tampering with a witness, the defendant appealed to the Appellate Court, claiming, inter alia, that there was insufficient evidence to support her conviction. The defendant's boyfriend, R, and her former boyfriend, M, had engaged in an altercation outside of her home. M, who was injured, called the police, after which R left the premises. A state police officer who responded to the scene spoke with M in the presence of the defendant, and M told the officer that he had been assaulted by R and another person who was with R at the time. The officer then went to R's residence, where R showed him his cell phone and told him that he should read the text messages between the defendant and R. In those text messages, the defendant informed R that the police were coming and instructed R to have blood on his clothes. The defendant further told R that M had reported to the police that R attacked him but that the defendant's statement to the police was that M was bloody when he arrived at her home because he was in a bar fight somewhere else. The defendant directed R to tell the police that M stalks her and emphasized that they needed to stick to the same story. The officer subsequently confronted the defendant about the text messages, and she stated that the text messages were taken out of context. At trial, however, the defendant denied sending the text messages. The Appellate Court upheld the defendant's conviction, concluding that the jury reasonably could have found that the defendant tampered with a witness, R, by sending him text messages shortly after his altercation with M. On the granting of certification, the defendant appealed to this court, claiming that the Appellate Court improperly had upheld her conviction because there was insufficient evidence from which a jury reasonably could find that she had specifically intended to interfere with a witness' testimony at an official proceeding. Held that the Appellate Court correctly determined that the jury reasonably could have found that the defendant tampered with a witness when she sent R text messages shortly after his altercation with M: the jury reasonably could have inferred that, when the defendant sent the text messages to R, she believed that an official proceeding was pending or was about to be instituted at which R would likely be a witness, as there was evidence presented at trial that the defendant knew of and contributed to the investigation of the altercation, knew there were witnesses to the altercation, including herself, knew there was physical evidence of the altercation, namely, M's injuries, knew the police were taking M's complaint against R seriously, and knew that the police were interested in contacting R regarding the altercation; moreover, the jury also reasonably could have inferred that the defendant induced or attempted to induce R to testify falsely at that proceeding, as there was evidence that the defendant knew that R was a critical witness to the altercation under investigation and that she had instructed R on how to fabricate his statement to the police so that it would match with her statement, and the defendant's own false testimony before the jury regarding the nature of her relationship with R and her denial that she ever had sent the text messages in question to R reasonably could have led the jury to infer that, because she had no qualms about giving false testimony herself, she intended for R to do the same when it was his turn to testify. (Three justices dissenting in two separate opinions) Argued October 16, 2019—officially released September 3, 2020

Pursuant to statute (§ 7-249), after the acquisition or construction of a sewerage system, a municipality's water pollution control authority may levy benefit assessments on the owners of properties and buildings that are benefited thereby, and ''[b]enefits to buildings or structures constructed or expanded after the initial assessment may be assessed as if the new or expanded buildings or structures had existed at the time of the initial assessment.'' The plaintiff appealed to the trial court, challenging a supplemental sewerage benefit assessment levied pursuant to § 7-249 by the defendant, the Metropolitan District Commission, against certain real property owned by the plaintiff after the plaintiff converted a commercial office building on the property into a 285 unit residential condominium community. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant lacked authority to levy the supplemental assessment, reasoning that, since the initial assessment against the owners of the property when it was a two-story building in 1849, there had been no new construction or expansion of the building or structures on the property, as required by § 7-249 for the levying of a supplemental assessment. The plaintiff further claimed that the defendant violated § 7-249 by using a different method for calculating the supplemental assessment than was used for calculating the initial assessment. The parties filed motions for summary judgment with respect to the issue of whether the defendant had authority to levy the challenged assessment. The trial court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant's motion, agreeing with the defendant that the creation of the residential units constituted the construction of structures within the meaning of § 7-249, thereby author- izing it to levy a supplemental assessment. After a trial to the court, however, the court rendered judgment for the plaintiff, concluding that the defendant's calculation of the supplemental assessment violated § 7- 249 because the defendant did not use the street frontage method in calculating the supplemental assessment, which was the method used to calculate the initial assessment. The court ordered the defendant to recalculate the assessment in accordance with the foregoing method and to return the amount paid by the plaintiff if the property's street frontage remained unchanged since the initial assessment or, if the street frontage had changed, to assess accordingly. Thereafter, the defendant appealed, claiming that the trial court incorrectly determined that it was required to use the same method to calculate the amount of the supplemental assessment as the method that had been used to calculate the initial assessment in 1849. The plaintiff cross appealed, claiming that the trial court improperly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment because the conversion of the building into residential units did not constitute the construction of structures within the meaning of § 7-249. Held: 1. The trial court properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, as there was no genuine issue of material fact with respect to the defendant's authority's to levy the supplemental assessment against the plaintiff's property: having reviewed dictionary definitions of the term ''structure'' and the treatment of that term in prior case law, this court determined that the term ''structure,'' as used in § 7-249, is broader than the term ''building,'' and that the trial court correctly concluded, under the broad definition of ''structure,'' that the interior renovations to the existing building on the plaintiff's property, namely, the creation of 285 residential units, constituted the construction of structures within the meaning of § 7-249, as new units were constructed on each floor of the existing building with each unit containing a new kitchen, bathroom, bedroom and living area, such that each unit was artificially built up or composed of parts joined together to create sepa- rate residences inside the existing building; moreover, there was no merit to the plaintiff's claim that the broad definition of ''structure'' should not apply because that term had acquired a peculiar meaning in real property law that was coextensive with the term ''building,'' as the statutes governing real property on which the plaintiff relied did not have a consistent definition of ''structure'' or consistently define those terms as being coextensive, thereby indicating that the term ''structure'' had not acquired a peculiar meaning in real property law. 2. The trial court incorrectly determined that § 7-249 required the defendant to use the same method to calculate the supplemental assessment as was used to calculate the initial assessment: the plaintiff could not prevail on its claim that this court's analysis of § 7-249 in Tower Business Park Associates Number One Ltd. Partnership v. Water Pollution Con- trol Authority (213 Conn. 112) required that the method used to calculate the initial assessment be the same one used for calculating the supple- mental assessment, as that case never addressed whether new or expanded buildings or structures could be assessed using a different method of calculation than that used for the initial assessment; more- over, a review of the language of § 7-249 led this court to conclude that § 7-249 must grant water pollution control authorities discretion in deciding the method to apply in assessing supplemental benefits, and that method may be different from the one utilized for the initial assess- ment, provided that that method would have been authorized under the rules applicable at the time of the initial assessment; furthermore, the plaintiff failed to offer any evidence to indicate that the defendant used a method that would not have been authorized under the rules governing such assessments in 1849, when the initial assessment was levied. Argued April 29—officially released September 4, 2020