source: Caselaw Access Project

author: PER CURIAM.

license: Public Domain

text:
    STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. FREDDIE COX, JR.
    (SC 16027)
    McDonald, C. J., and Norcott, Katz, Palmer and Sullivan, Js.
    Argued September 24
    officially released October 19, 1999

      TaraL. Knight, special public defender, for the appellant (defendant).

      Richard F. Jacobson, special assistant state’s attorney, with whom, on the brief, was Cornelius P. Kelly, assistant state’s attorney, for the appellee (state).
   Opinion

PER CURIAM.

After a jury trial, the defendant, Freddie Cox, Jr., was convicted of assault in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-60 (a) (2). The defendant appealed his conviction, claiming that “(1) the state committed prosecutorial misconduct during the questioning of witnesses and during its closing argument, (2) the trial court made an improper statement to the jury thereby depriving the defendant of a fair trial and (3) the trial court improperly charged the jury, sua sponte, on consciousness of guilt, which allowed the jury to infer flight on an inadequate factual basis.” State v. Cox, 50 Conn. App. 175, 176-77, 718 A.2d 60 (1998). The Appellate Court rejected the defendant’s arguments and affirmed his conviction. Id. We granted certification, limited to the following issues: (1) “Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that there was a sufficient evidentiary basis for the trial court’s instruction on flight or consciousness of guilt?” and (2) “If the answer to the first question is no, was the error harmful?” State v. Cox, 247 Conn. 928, 719 A.2d 1170 (1998).

Having examined the record on appeal, studied the briefs and heard the arguments of the parties, we conclude that the judgment of the Appellate Court should be affirmed. The issue on which we granted certification was properly resolved in the thoughtful and comprehensive opinion of the Appellate Court. See, e.g., Brennan v. Burger King Corp., 244 Conn. 204, 206, 707 A.2d 30 (1998); Murphy v. Buonato, 241 Conn. 319, 321-22, 696 A.2d 320 (1997).

The judgment of the Appellate Court is affirmed.

       General Statutes § 53a-60 provides in relevant part: “(a) A person is guilty of assault in the second degree when ... (2) with intent to cause physical injury to another person, he causes such injury to such person or to a third person by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument other than by means of the discharge of a firearm . . . .”


text:
    GENERAL ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA v. POWERS, BOLLES, HOULIHAN AND HARTLINE, INC.
    (SC 16060)
    Borden, Katz, Palmer, Sullivan and Peters, Js.
    Argued September 30
    officially released October 19, 1999

      William F. Corrigan, with whom, on the brief, was Elizabeth A. Fitzsimmons, for the appellant (plaintiff).

      Daniel P. ScapellaM, with whom, on the brief, was Joseph T. Sweeney, for the appellee (defendant).
   Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, General Accident Insurance Company of America, brought this action against the defendant insurance agent, Powers, Bolles, Houlihan and Hartline, Inc., alleging that the defendant failed to obtain a written request from an insured for uninsured-underinsured motorist coverage in an amount less than the liability coverage. Upon concluding that the insurance application form, which was signed by the insured, did not satisfy the writing requirement of General Statutes (Rev. to 1989) § 38-175c, now General Statutes § SSa-336, the trial court rendered judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant appealed claiming that “the trial court improperly (1) concluded that its insurance application was deficient as a matter of law for the purpose of electing a lesser amount of uninsuredunderinsured motorist coverage, and (2) failed to hold that the proper measure of damages was the difference between the premium that was actually charged to the policyholder for the coverage and the premium that would have been charged for the higher amount of coverage.” General Accident Ins. Co. of America v. Powers, Bolles, Houlihan & Hartline, Inc., 50 Conn. App. 701, 702, 719 A.2d 77 (1998). The Appellate Court reversed the judgment of the trial court holding that, on the basis of the plain language of the statute, the application satisfied the statutory writing requirement. Id., 715. We granted certification limited to the following issue: “Did the application for automobile insurance with liability limits higher than the uninsured-underinsured motorist limits constitute a written rejection of the right to uninsured-underinsured motorist coverage equal to the amount of liability coverage?” General Accident Ins. Co. of America v. Powers, Bolles, Houlihan & Hartline, Inc., 247 Conn. 954-55, 723 A.2d 810 (1999).

Having reviewed the briefs, the record and the arguments of the parties, we conclude that the judgment of the Appellate Court should be affirmed. In its thorough and thoughtful opinion, the Appellate Court properly resolved the issue on which we granted certification.

The judgment of the Appellate Court is affirmed.

       General Statutes (Rev. to 1989) § 38-175c (a) (2) provides in relevant part: “Notwithstanding any provision of this section to the contrary, eveiy such policy issued or renewed on and after July 1, 1984, shall provide uninsured motorist coverage with limits for bodily injury and death equal to those purchased to protect against loss resulting from the liability imposed by law unless the insured requests in writing a lesser amount, but not less than the limits specified in subsection (a) of section 14-112. . . .”
      In 1991, § 38-175c (a) (2) was transferred without change to General Statutes § 38a-336 (a) (2). Subsequently, in 1993, § 38a-336 (a) (2) was amended to require a specific notice to the insured regarding the election of a lesser amount of uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage. See General Statutes (Rev. to 1995) § 38a-336 (a) (2).

       On the basis of its resolution of the first issue, the Appellate Court found it unnecessary to resolve the second issue on appeal. General Accident Ins. Co. of America v. Powers, Bolles, Houlihan & Hartline, Inc., 50 Conn. App. 701, 702 n.1, 719 A.2d 77 (1998).