Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel v. Miller, 335 Conn. 474 (2020)

Citation: Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel v. Miller, 335 Conn. 474 (2020)
Parent Document: Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel v. Miller, 335 Conn. 474 (2020)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2020-04-27
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4801014/office-of-chief-disciplinary-co... ↗

Full Text

2,467 chars

guity in a trial court’s memorandum of decision, an
appellate court may order articulation to ensure an
adequate record for review. Practice Book § 61-10 (b)
provides in relevant part: ‘‘If the court determines that
articulation of the trial court decision is appropriate, it
may, pursuant to Section 60-5, order articulation by the
trial court within a specified time period. . . .’’ See also
In re Nevaeh W., supra, 317 Conn. 738. In the interest
of judicial economy and the proper presentation of the
issues on appeal, this court has repeatedly ordered the
trial court to articulate either the factual or legal basis
for its decision, and this court has relied on those articu-
lations to resolve the issues on appeal. See id. (citing
cases). Thus, even when the trial court refuses to articu-
late, this court is still empowered to order an articula-
tion if we determine it is necessary to perfect the record
for our review. As such, the denial of the defendant’s
motions for articulation and review does not constitute
a violation of her due process rights.
With respect to the defendant’s remaining claims—
that the trial court incorrectly concluded both that she
engaged in misconduct and that her claims of racial
discrimination and retaliation were not properly raised
in the presentment hearing—on the basis of our exami-
nation of the record and the briefs, and our consider-
ation of the arguments of the parties, we are persuaded
that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.
The issues were resolved properly in the trial court’s
thorough and well reasoned memorandum of decision.
See Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel v. Miller,
Superior Court, judicial district of Danbury, Docket No.
CV-XX-XXXXXXX-S (November 26, 2018) (reprinted at 335
Conn. 480, A.3d (2020)). Because that memoran-
dum of decision fully addresses the second and third
issues raised by the defendant in this appeal, we adopt it
as a proper statement of the applicable law concerning
those issues. It would serve no useful purpose for us
Page 34 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL November 3, 2020

Other Sections in This Document (122)

Full Text