Lapointe v. Commissioner of Correction, 316 Conn. 225

Summary

This document is a second dissenting opinion in Lapointe v. Commissioner of Correction, concerning a habeas petition arising from a criminal conviction. Justice Espinosa criticizes the majority for resolving the appeal on an issue not raised by the parties, disregarding the habeas court’s factual and credibility findings, and applying what the dissent characterizes as an improper de novo review of those findings in the context of a Brady claim.

Holdings

1. The dissent maintained that the appellate court is constitutionally prohibited from reviewing the habeas court's factual and expert-credibility findings de novo and must apply clear-error review.
2. The dissent maintained that the court could not decide the appeal on a new standard-of-review issue that neither party raised without giving the parties notice and an opportunity to submit supplemental briefs.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the appellate court may review a habeas court's factual and credibility findings concerning the materiality of alleged Brady evidence de novo rather than for clear error.
2. Whether an appellate court may resolve an appeal on a legal issue raised sua sponte without providing the parties an opportunity to brief that issue.
3. Whether the habeas court's findings concerning the uncertain burn time and Martin's lack of credibility compelled rejection of Lapointe's Brady materiality claim.

Disposition

affirmed