Connecticut Supreme Court in Hartford. Photo: Wikimedia Commons

The Connecticut Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in 11 cases during a special June session, held via videoconferencing due to precautions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Here is a look at some of the more notable cases.

State v. Carey

In an appeal that centers on hearsay, the state Supreme Court will decide whether the Connecticut Appellate Court made a mistake in upholding the murder conviction of Alanna Carey in the shooting death of her ex-boyfriend.

At issue is a defense claim that the trial court was wrong in allowing the testimony of a friend of Edward Landry, the victim in the case.

According to the state high court's synopsis of the case, prosecutors presented testimony during trial of Mark Manganello about conversations he had had with Landry. The defense, the synopsis says, had argued the testimony was hearsay, and therefore the court should not allow it.

In its ruling, the Connecticut Appellate Court said any error in allowing the testimony was "harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's consciousness of guilt."

The appellate court also wrote that Manganello's testimony "did not substantially affect the verdict," according to the synopsis.

Klein v. Quinnipiac University

At issue in the premises liability case of Klein v. Quinnipiac University is whether the trial judge should have made certain jury instructions.

A jury found in favor of Quinnipiac University, which Daniel Klein sued after he was injured while riding over a speed bump on campus.

Klein appealed, saying the judge should have instructed the jury as "to the duty of care that a property owner owes a licensee," according to the high court's synopsis of the case. The plaintiff argues the university consented to his presence on campus, and had a duty to warn that there was a speed bump in the area.

But the lower court disagreed. It ruled the speed bump "was visible on a clear and sunny day such that it could not be considered a hidden, dangerous condition."

State v. Manuel T.

In another case that hinges on hearsay evidence, a man convicted of sexual assault and risk of injury to a child—his stepdaughter—appealed, arguing the court improperly allowed video evidence of statements that the child made to hospital officials.

The trial court allowed the statements, according to the state Supreme Court's synopsis of the case, under "the medical diagnosis or treatment exception to the hearsay rule."

Manuel T., though, argued that the lower court should not have made an exception to the hearsay rule, because "the primary, if not singular, purpose of the interview was criminal investigation and prosecution, not medical diagnosis or treatment."

Now, it's up to the state's highest court to decide.

Related stories:

No Oral Arguments This Week at Connecticut Supreme Court Amid COVID-19 Precautions

Panhandler's Case Among 10 to Reach Connecticut Supreme Court in February

The Danger of Disappearing Jury Trials, During and After the Pandemic