Se Habla Español
Call Today for a Free Consultation
203-348-5846
1100 Summer Street, Stamford, CT 06905
Recent Blog Posts
Proposed New Consent Standard for College Sexual Assault Cases
Sexual assault on college campuses occurs with alarming frequency. Among the most critical issues of fact in sexual assault cases is whether the alleged victim consented to the sexual activity. A proposed law would change the legal definition of consent in these cases.
Currently, Connecticut law provides that sexual assault in the first degree occurs when a person compels another to engage in sexual intercourse by the use of force, or the threat of use of force, against that person or a third person. As with any criminal charge, sexual assault must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt for the accused to be found guilty.
Under the proposed law, the consent standard in sexual assault cases that occur on college campuses in Connecticut would become “affirmative consent.” The proposal is modeled after a recently-enacted California law, and provides that affirmative consent means “affirmative, conscious and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity.” Failure to protest or resist, and remaining silent, would not constitute affirmative consent.
Violation of Protective and Restraining Orders in Domestic Violence Cases
If you have been arrested on domestic violence charges, chances are good that you have also had a protective or restraining order issued against you. The courts—and Connecticut lawmakers—take domestic violence charges, protective orders, and restraining orders very seriously, and so should you.
Protective Orders
According to the Connecticut Judicial Branch information on domestic violence, a protective order is an order issued in a criminal case and is issued against a defendant after an arrest for family violence. A criminal protective order remains in effect until the underlying criminal case is completed.
Restraining Orders
Heroin Use Moves to the Suburbs
Many people think that drug crime is a problem only in big cities. However, lately the use of heroin and other drugs has been skyrocketing in the suburbs, including affluent communities. Increased drug use brings with it an increase in the number of arrests, hospital visits, and property crimes.
According to a recent article in the Connecticut Post, there has been a threefold increase in opiate addiction cases over the last decade at the Addiction Recovery Center at Greenwich Hospital. In addition, heroin deaths have been recorded by Greenwich Police every year since 2011.
Heroin-related arrests have increased as well. Greenwich Police made twelve heroin seizures in 2013, but the actual number is higher because the presence of heroin was not recorded in several other cases. Drug-related property crimes, including burglaries, items stolen from cars, and even street robberies, have been on the rise. Every year the Greenwich Police see from 80 to 100 residential burglary cases and 20 to 30 business burglary cases. It’s estimated that the vast majority of those cases—up to 95 percent of them—are related to drugs.
Online Solicitation and the Consequences
If you have ever seen some of the popular crime shows on television today, there are many shows revolving around the theme of internet predators. In fact, with the popularity of social media, the problem is ever growing as younger adults frequently use the Internet and social media in their everyday lives, raising concerns about the potential for predator crimes.
In the state of Connecticut, online solicitation of a minor is defined as using a computer service that is interactive to coerce a person less than 16 years of age. If you know that the person you are talking to is under 16, and you attempt to entice them into prostitution or sexual acts, you can be charged with a criminal offense.
Solicitation of a minor is a class D felony in the state of Connecticut for the first offense. The second is a class C felony, and the third offense is a class B felony. There significant other a special exception that says if the person is less than 13 years of age, you will be charged with a class B felony that is punishable by no less than a 5 year term of imprisonment for the first offense. Any subsequent offense will be 10 years. These sentences cannot be suspended or reduced by the court.
Proposed Legislation Would Reduce the Use of Shackles on Juveniles in the Courtroom
For juveniles who have been arrested on criminal charges, facing a judge can be an intimidating experience. Appearing before a judge while the juvenile is wearing shackles is considered by some to be too traumatizing for many juveniles and sends them the wrong message.
Two Connecticut lawmakers have introduced bills that would limit the circumstances under which juveniles would be kept in shackles in the courtroom. The legislation would create a presumption that shackles will not be used in the courtroom unless ordered by the court. Existing policy states that juveniles are to be shackled while being transferred from a detention center to the courthouse, but a determination is then made as to whether the shackles stay on in the courtroom based on how the juvenile behaved in detention.
However, there is some disagreement as to whether the policy is followed consistently in all cases. It is reported that in some cases, shackles are not removed from the juvenile unless requested by the juvenile’s attorney. This is an instance where it pays to have an experienced juvenile criminal defense attorney at your side.
Penalties for Assault Convictions in Connecticut
If you have been charged with the crime of assault in Connecticut, the type of charge will determine the potential penalties you will face. Connecticut law delineates three distinct levels of assault, each of which carries separate penalties.
First degree assault is the most severe level you can be charged with. Assault in the first degree is a Class B felony in Connecticut, carrying penalties of up to 20 years in prison—with a mandatory prison of at least five years—and up to $15,000 in fines if convicted. First degree assault is defined as:
- Causing serious physical injury with a deadly weapon or other dangerous item, with the intent to cause serious injury.
- Causing serious permanent disfigurement or destroying or amputating a body part, with the intent to do so.
Understanding Intimidation Laws in Connecticut
Hate crimes are a sad reality for many Americans. Everyday, people face discrimination due to race, sexual orientation, religion, and a number of other factors. Conversely, some people face unfounded accusations of committing hate crimes, and in Connecticut, these crimes can have serious consequences.
Hate crime laws are in place to prevent prejudice and to punish those who unjustifiably discriminate against people. If you have been the victim of a hate crime, or if a person is accusing you of illegal discrimination, it is important to consult an attorney right away.
How the Law Defines Intimidation
According to the State of Connecticut, the first step in defining intimidation is proving one's intent to harm another individual solely on the basis sexual orientation, race, religion, or disability. The victim of the abuse does not need to be of any particular creed, nationality, or gender identity. As long as there is evidence proving the harmful actions resulted from hatred or intent to discriminate, the case can proceed as a crime of intimidation. These laws cover any situation involving direct violence, harassment in any form, and destruction of personal property.
Connecticut is a Juvenile Justice Trendsetter
According to a national report, Connecticut is among several states that are trendsetters in matters pertaining to juvenile justice. The report is based on changes to state law that have been enacted during the last decade. This is good news for juvenile offenders who face many risks entering the Connecticut juvenile justice system.
Connecticut, along with Illinois and Mississippi, have increased the age of jurisdiction of juvenile courts to treat older youths as juveniles rather than as adults for purposes of criminal prosecution. As of 2011, 17-year-olds are considered to be juveniles for purposes of criminal law. Before the change, 16- and 17-year-olds were considered to be adults.
Connecticut is also one of ten states that have amended their laws to make it more difficult to transfer juveniles from juvenile court to adult court. The other states are Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Nevada, Utah, Virginia, and Washington. Transferring youths to the adult court system is a way for states to treat young offenders as adults for purposes of criminal law.
Fatal Car Crashes Involving Marijuana Have Tripled In the Last Decade
The decriminalization of marijuana is a growing trend nationwide. In Washington and Colorado, marijuana has been legalized, while in almost half the states—including Connecticut—it may be used legally only for medical purposes. However, there may be a darker side to these trends: a recent study shows that the number of marijuana-related automobile fatalities has risen sharply in the last decade. The data suggest that drugged driving may be an increasingly common cause of car accidents.
According to a report by the Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, the presence of non-alcohol drugs in the systems of drivers involved in fatal car crashes has been on the rise and has tripled in the last decade. Using data from the states that routinely test the blood of drivers involved in fatal car accidents, the study reported that in 1999, 4.2 percent of drivers who were killed in automobile crashes tested positive for marijuana; in 2010, that number increased to 12.2 percent. The major increase was shown across all ages and in both genders.
Conviction Reversed on Technicality
In a 2-1 vote, the Third District Court of Appeals recently overturned a guilty verdict in a sexual assault trial, because the judge gave the jury a definition of “reasonable doubt” during deliberations. In response to a question, the judge told the Tazewell County jury that the meaning of “reasonable doubt” was “for you to determine.” The appeals court ruled that this statement constituted a definition, which is prohibited under state law.
In his dissent, Justice Daniel Schmidt argued that the trial judge correctly applied the law, because the definition of “reasonable doubt” is indeed up to the jury’s discretion in a criminal law case.
The Law Offices of Daniel P. Weiner in Stamford, Connecticut serves clients in Greenwich, Norwalk, New Canaan, Darien, Westport, Bridgeport, Fairfield, Danbury, Wilton and clients throughout Fairfield County and across Connecticut (CT).
©2025 Law Offices of Daniel P. Weiner | 1100 Summer Street, Stamford, CT 06905 | 203-348-5846
Call for Free Initial Consulation
203-348-5846
