Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** TERRILL SPEIGHT v. OFFICE OF VICTIM SERVICES (AC 19875)
Mihalakos, Zarella and Hennessy, Js. Submitted on briefs October 18--officially released December 19, 2000 Counsel

Richard Blumenthal, attorney general, and Susan Quinn Cobb and Carolyn K. Querijero, assistant attorneys general, filed a brief for the appellant (defendant).
Opinion

MIHALAKOS, J. In this appeal, the defendant, the office of victim services, challenges an order entered by the Superior Court requiring the defendant to compensate the plaintiff, Terrill Speight, for medical expenses incurred as a result of a crime against his person. The defendant argues that the court properly rendered a judgment of dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and, consequently, that the court lacked the authority to enter the challenged order. We agree and reverse in part the judgment of the trial court. The following facts and procedural history are relevant to our resolution of this appeal. At approximately 3 a.m. on October 23, 1996, the plaintiff was shot while

walking in Stamford near the intersection of South Pacific and Manhattan Streets. After recovering from the wound, the plaintiff applied to the defendant for compensation.1 On April 23, 1997, the defendant declined to compensate the plaintiff for his losses because he had ``failed to cooperate with law enforcement officials in their efforts to investigate the incident.'' Pursuant to General Statutes

Download Speight v. Office of Victim Services.pdf

Connecticut Law