Auerbach v. Auerbach (2009)

See State v. Jones, 113 Conn. App. 250 , 255–56, 966 A.2d 277 , cert. denied, 292 Conn. 901 , 971 A.2d 40 (2009). ‘‘When reviewing a trial court’s [ruling on] a motion to suppress, [a] finding of fact will not be disturbed unless it is clearly erroneous in view of the evidence and pleadings in the whole record . . . . [W]hen a question of fact is essential to the outcome of a particular legal determination that implicates a defendant’s constitutional rights, [how- ever] and …

See State v. Jones, 113 Conn. App. 250, 262 , 966 A.2d 277 (‘‘[a] police officer has the right to stop a motor vehicle operating on a Connecticut highway even if the reason for the stop is only an infraction under our traffic laws’’ [internal quotation marks omitted]), cert. denied, 292 Conn. 901 , 971 A.2d 40 (2009).

See Caban v. Commissioner of Correction, 113 Conn. App. 165, 170 , 965 A.2d 601 (record devoid of evidence that could have changed outcome of trial), cert. denied, 292 Conn. 901 , 971 A.2d 40 (2009).

See Auerbach v. Auerbach, 113 Conn. App. 318, 327 , 966 A.2d 292 (“[a] factual finding is clearly erroneous when it is not supported by any evidence in the record or when there is evidence to support it, but the reviewing court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made” [internal quotation marks omitted]), cert. denied, 292 Conn. 901 , 971 A.2d 40 (2009). 6 The defendant maintains that our standard of review is whether the court abused its di…

See Auerbach v. Auerbach, 113 Conn. App. 318, 325 , 966 A.2d 292 , cert. denied, 292 Conn. 901 , 971 A.2d 40 (2009). 10 It is not certain whether the defendant is complaining of the facts found by the fact finder or of the court’s judgment rendered pursuant to the fact finder’s findings.

See State v. Jones, 113 Conn. App. 250 , 261 n.6, 966 A.2d 277 (“[T]he determination of a witness’ credibility is the special function of the trial court. [A reviewing] court cannot sift and weigh evidence.” [Internal quotation marks omitted.]), cert. denied, 292 Conn. 901 , 971 A.2d 40 (2009).

Indeed, the Appellate Court previously has used the phrase “persistent drug offender” to describe a defendant who has been convicted of committing subsequent offenses under § 21a-278 (b) and General Statutes § 21a-277 (b); see State v. Jones, 113 Conn. App. 250 , 252 n.1, 966 A.2d 277 , cert. denied, 292 Conn. 901 , 971 A.2d 40 (2009); Knight v. Commissioner of Correction, 68 Conn. App. 617, 618 , 793 A.2d 1092 (2002); State v. Knight, 50 Conn. App. 109, 110 , 717 A.2d 274 (…

See, e.g., Auerbach v. Auerbach, 113 Conn. App. 318, 337 , 966 A.2d 292 , cert. denied, 292 Conn. 901 , 971 A.2d 40 (2009); Gentile v. Carneiro, 107 Conn. App. 630, 654 , 946 A.2d 871 (2008); Bee v. Bee, 79 Conn. App. 783, 786-87 , 831 A.2d 833 , cert. denied, 266 Conn. 932 , 837 A.2d 805 (2003).