State v. Damato-Kushel, 327 Conn. 173

Summary

This concurrence addresses whether the Connecticut Constitution’s victim’s rights amendment gives an alleged victim the right to have counsel attend informal, in-chambers plea discussions or judicial pretrials. The concurrence argues that the constitutional right to attend is personal to the victim, does not extend to attendance through counsel, and does not apply to informal off-the-record discussions that are distinct from formal disposition conferences.

Holdings

1. An arrest warrant alleging that the charged criminal misconduct was perpetrated against the plaintiff in error sufficiently determined his status as a victim for purposes of triggering the rights afforded by the Connecticut victim's rights amendment.
2. The trial court's order was a final judgment because it conclusively denied an asserted constitutional attendance right whose legal and practical value would be destroyed if review were postponed until after the underlying criminal case ended.
3. The Connecticut victim's rights amendment does not grant a victim or the victim's authorized representative a right to attend off-the-record, in-chambers disposition conferences because the defendant has no right under Connecticut law to attend those conferences personally.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the alleged victim was aggrieved and had standing to bring the writ of error when the arrest warrant alleged that the charged criminal conduct was perpetrated against him.
2. Whether the trial court's interlocutory order excluding the alleged victim from future in-chambers pretrial disposition conferences was a final judgment reviewable by writ of error.
3. Whether the Connecticut victim's rights amendment, article first, § 8(b)(5), grants a victim or the victim's authorized representative a right to attend off-the-record, in-chambers pretrial disposition conferences involving plea negotiations.

Disposition

dismissed