Attorney O's Midnight Musings: Connecticut Law

Protect Your Elderly Loved Ones BEFORE It’s Too Late

2010-03-16T04:04:55Z

I was reminded this week that it’s better to be proactive than reactive. Especially when it comes to your elderly loved ones, friends or neighbors. Often, as people age, they entrust their personal affairs to a family member or close friend whom they believe they can trust. Sometimes they sign a Power of Attorney, allowing the trusted person to manage their financial affairs and access their bank accounts or investments. They may ask someone to serve as their representative/payee for purposes of obtaining and managing their social security benefits.

I often hear stories of elderly people who sign over their home to a family member in order to “protect” it. I’m not saying that every incidence of such a transfer is done by slight of hand on the part of the so-called trusted family member — but it does happen. Sometimes, the elderly person is coerced into doing it. Or they are lied to.

If an elderly person in your life has given up control of their financial and/or personal decisions to a family member or friend and you suspect that something isn’t quite right, I urge you to speak up sooner rather than later. If that elderly person has expressed concern to you over the way their affairs are being handled — or if they are confused over what the person handling their finances is doing with their money, that should raise an alarm.

I am not suggesting hysteria here, so please don’t get me wrong. But if you see something that just isn’t right, protect that elderly person and make a call. You might call the Protective Services for the Elderly unit of the Department of Social Services. They will begin an investigation. Or if you believe some serious financial abuse has occurred, such as an elderly person signing over their interest in their home to another person and you believe they don’t understand the nature of having signed a quit claim deed, you might contact an attorney. Whatever the circumstance, if you have a bad feeling about something that has to do with your elderly loved one, friend or neighbor, don’t wait until it’s too late. Seek professional assistance before the situation worsens.

The Death Penalty: A Mini History Lesson

2010-03-12T04:34:25Z

After reading a Hartford Courant article about Dr. William Petit’s testimony before the Judiciary Committee on the death penalty, I got to wondering about the history of capital punishment. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, the Code of King Hammaurabi of Babylon codified the death penalty for 25 different crimes as early as the Eighteenth Century B.C. At that time, crucifixions, drowning, beating to death, burning alive, and impalement were favored methods of implementing the death penalty.

In 1608, Captain George Kendall was executed in the Jamestown colony of Virginia for being a spy for Spain. That was the first recorded execution in the new colonies. Four years later, in 1612, the Divine, Moral and Martial Laws were enacted by Virginia Governor Sir Thomas Dale. Under those laws, a person could be sentenced to the death penalty for such minor offenses as stealing grapes.

On December 26, 1862, during the Dakota War of 1862, the simultaneous hanging of 38 Dakota people convicted of murder and rape was the largest single execution in United States history.

The death penalty was suspended in the United States from 1972 through 1976 primarily as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision in Furman v. Georgia. The court found the imposition of the death penalty in a consolidated group of cases to be unconstitutional, on the grounds of cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the eighth amendment to the United States Constitution.

The moratorium on capital punishment ended when on January 17, 1977, Gary Gilmore was executed by firing squad in Utah. His famous last words were, “Let’s do it.” Later that year, Oklahoma became the first state to adopt lethal injection as a means of execution. On December 7, 1982, Charles Brooks became the first person executed by lethal injection in Texas.

The fate of capital punishment in Connecticut is now before the Judiciary Committee. There are strong and passionate arguments on both sides of this controversial issue. It’s anybody’s guess how this will turn out.

Who Thinks Up These Laws? More Importantly, Why?

2010-03-11T05:19:44Z

My colleague and fellow blogger, Attorney Adrian Baron, celebrated his 1-year anniversary as author of The Nutmeg Lawyer this week. Congratulations, Adrian!

At the end of his post, Will Connecticut Residents Finally Be Able To Buy Alcohol On Sunday? he lists some arcane (and quite amusing) Connecticut laws. Inspired by his research, I decided to do some of my own.

With the sale of alcohol on Sundays on everyone’s mind in Connecticut these days … well maybe it’s not on everyone’s mind but it’s on enough people’s minds to be the subject of debate … And with the whole restructuring of the Probate Courts taking place as you read this, I offer the following statute:

Chapter 545 Sec. 30-97. Town and probate records not to be kept where liquor is sold.

Town or probate records shall not be kept in any room in which alcoholic liquor is sold, nor in any room from which
there is direct access to a room in which such liquor is sold. Any town clerk or judge of probate violating the
provisions of this section shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 30-113.

(1949 Rev., S. 4298.)

FYI, that law was repealed effective October 1, 2002! I guess someone finally took the time to read that chapter!

My question is, who thinks up these laws? More importantly, why?

If A Physician Aids a Terminally Ill Patient in Dying, Is It Assisted-Suicide or Not?

2010-03-10T01:41:08Z

Under current Connecticut law, “A person is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree when … he intentionally causes or aids another person, other than by force, duress or deception, to commit suicide.” Two Fairfield County doctors who have been asked by their terminally ill patients to prescribe medications to help them die peacefully, are asking the court if doing so would make them guilty of a crime if they did so. The core of the doctors’ lawsuit is to ask the court interpret the word “suicide.”

The issue of physicians aiding terminally ill patients in dying has been under debate for many years in other states across the country. Oregon, Washington and Montana currently have “Death with Dignity” laws allowing physicians to prescribe medication for terminally ill patients who wish to die peacefully. Connecticut has thus far resisted passing such a law.

On one side of the argument is the belief that aiding anyone in dying, whether they are terminally ill and in excruciating pain or not, amounts to assisted suicide. Some opponents of “Death with Dignity” laws have claimed that allowing physicians to prescribe medications to aid people in dying will open the floodgates for scores of elderly, disenfranchised, lonely or depressed people to obtain such prescriptions to commit suicide with the assistance of their doctors.

Those on the other side of the debate argue that if a person is terminally ill — and is going to die with or without the help of a physician — then aiding that person in dying without having to endure excruciating pain is not assisted suicide. The physician’s role in such cases is to aid a patient in dying with dignity and without having to endure unbearable pain.

And there is a difference. According Denver-based Compassion and Choices, an end-of-life advocacy group:

“Those facing a terminal illness do not want to die but—by definition—are dying. They are facing an imminent death and want the option to avoid unbearable suffering. Terminally ill patients who legally access the Death with Dignity Act find the word ’suicide’ offensive and inaccurate. Many have publicly expressed that the term is hurtful and derogatory to them and their loved ones.”

A Connecticut Court will have an opportunity to weigh in on the debate. It will be interesting to see which turn this case takes.

For your information, I have posted links to the “Death with Dignity” laws in other states:

The Washington Death with Dignity Act

The Oregon Death with Dignity Act

Baxter v. Montana (the court decision that allowed “Death with Dignity” in Montana)

It’s All About the Timing

2010-03-03T05:02:40Z

I was purging the office file cabinets of closed cases today and one of the files jogged my memory about a case I participated in a few years ago. As an attorney, it is always important to maintain professional decorum in court. In other words, spontaneous laughter by a lawyer listening to a witness being questioned by another lawyer probably won’t sit well with a judge. They teach you that in law school. Don’t laugh in court. Well, perhaps if the judge is laughing it’s okay for the lawyers to laugh along with him or her. I should e-mail one of my old professors to find out for sure. I’ll get back to you on that.

On the day in question, I was serving as a court-appointed GAL (Guardian Ad Litem) for the minor child in a paternity case. The alleged father had recently been released from prison and the State was brining a paternity action as a precursor to a child support action.

In such cases, the Assistant Attorney General (AAG, for short) generally asks the mother a series of personal – but necessary – questions that may help to establish paternity. Rather than put the mother on the witness stand, the magistrate allowed the AAG to question her while she (the mother) remained standing at the counsel table. I stood to the mother’s left, facing the magistrate. I was literally standing right in front of him. Well, I was about 5 feet away from the bench, but I was standing directly in his line of vision. The AAG stood to the mother’s right and consulted her notes. The court clerk, a court reporter, and two marshals were facing us from the front left side of the courtroom. The courtroom was packed, quiet and extremely bored.

As you read the following exchange, keep in mind that 1) I was intent on maintaining professional decorum at all costs; 2) I was in full view of a magistrate the entire time and therefore could NOT laugh for any reason; and 3) The clerk, court reporter and both marshals were laughing hysterically almost the entire time. Sound like fun? Read on.

AAG to the mother: Okay, Miss Y, I have to ask you some very personal questions now. Do you understand?

Mother: Yes.

AAG: Okay. Miss Y, did you have intercourse with Mr. X around the time you became pregnant?

Mother: Yes.

AAG: Were you having intercourse with any other man around the time you became pregnant?

Mother: What? No, just him.

AAG: Did you give birth to the child on or about April 1, 2006?

Mother: Yeah, that’s my kid’s birthday.

AAG: So, is it safe to say that you became pregnant sometime around July 1st of 2005?

Mother: No.

AAG: No? Well, did you find out you were pregnant sometime in July or maybe August?

Mother: No, I had the baby on April 1st.

AAG: I understand that. I’m trying to determine when you became pregnant.

Mother: Ok.

AAG: So if you had the baby on April 1, 2006, is it reasonable to say that you would have become pregnant sometime in July of 2005, right?

Mother: No.

AAG: No? Okay, so if you had the baby on … here, look at this calendar …

Mother: Ok, I will.

AAG: Counting backwards … see … April, March, February, January, December, November, October, September, August, July. That’s 9 months, right?

Mother: I guess so.

AAG: You guess so?

Mother: Well, you counted. I was just watching.

AAG: Okay, well, let’s look at the calendar again.

[At this point, the AAG points to each month starting with April and counts out loud backward to July while the mother nods.]

AAG: So you must have gotten pregnant sometime in July then?

Mother: No.

AAG: Okay, well, did you deliver the baby prematurely then?

Mother: No, Ma’am, he was full term. 10 pounds.

AAG: Full term, I see. So then wouldn’t you have become pregnant in July of 2005? 9 months before the baby’s birth?

Mother: No.

AAG: No?

[The AAG is ready to tear her hair out at this point. The rest of the courtroom is listening intently, waiting to see what she’ll ask next. Me included. She removes her reading glasses and looks the mother right in the eye.]

AAG: [Long exasperated sigh]

AAG: Okay, Miss Y. Can you please tell me when you become pregnant?

Mother: Before I had the baby.

Author’s Note: You just can’t make this stuff up!

Eliminating the Statute of Limitations on Child Sex Abuse

2010-03-01T05:26:30Z

Under current law, a victim of childhood sexual abuse has until age 48 to file a civil lawsuit against the offender. Given the nature of the crimes and the emotional difficulties so many victims face in trying to come to terms with what happened to them, any statute of limitations on such crimes seems criminal in itself. Thankfully, Rep. Beth Bye feels the statute of limitations on childhood sexual abuse crimes should be eliminated.

According to an article posted on WFSB’s website, Rep. Bye believes that all victims of childhood sexual abuse should be allowed to file a civil lawsuit no matter how old they are. There will be public hearings on the issue in the near future as the issue is slated to go before the Judiciary Committee.

“In child sexual abuse, because children repress memories, that’s exactly why we need to open up the statute of limitations because we don’t know when there might be a triggering event,” Bye said. “We’re trying to protect people who were abused as children.”

I agree wholeheartedly and applaud the efforts of Rep. Beth Bye.

Read: Some Look To Eliminate Child Sex Abuse Law

An 80-Year-Old Career Criminal

2010-02-25T23:06:50Z

I am always intrigued by the “strange” headlines I read in the online news media. Those stories are the ones that I just can’t resist at least peeking at because they’re usually good for a laugh. At the very least, they cause me to shake my head in wonder or disbelief. The following is one of those stories. Here’s a quick excerpt. The link to the full story appears at the end of this post.

[Doris] Thompson, whose criminal record stretches back to 1955, pleaded guilty Wednesday to taking about $1,400 from the Children’s Medical Group in suburban Torrance.

[Thompson] called Deputy District Attorney Paulette Paccione “sweetie” and told the judge “God bless you” as he sentenced her to three years behind bars.

“She just likes to steal,” Paccione said Thursday. “It’s just been her occupation, I guess, for years and years and years.”

Read: 80-Year-Old Burglar To Judge: ‘God Bless You’

[Source: WFSB.com]

Prenuptial and PostNuptial Agreements

2010-02-25T04:41:17Z

I receive calls all the time from people who are about to be married — or who have already tied the knot — wanting to know whether or not they should prepare a prenuptial (or postnuptial) agreement and what the process entails.

I came upon the following post on the topic that is well-written and informative:

Why You May Need a Prenuptial or Postnuptial Agreement

There are many reasons that a person may want to execute a prenuptial (or postnuptial) agreement. If you have the slightest doubt as to whether or not such an agreement should be part of your marital planning, you should consult a licensed attorney.

Connecticut Lawmakers Propose Lighter Penalty for “Sexting” between Consenting Minors

2010-02-21T22:13:05Z

State Rep. Rosa Rebimbas (R-Naugatuck) and Rep. David Labriola (R-Naugatuck) co-sponsored a bill that would lesson the legal penalties for “sexting” between consenting minors. Under current law, it is a felony for a minor to send or receive text messages that include nude or sexual images. A minor convicted of such an offense is automatically place on the State’s sex-offender registry.

Read: Connecticut Bill Would Reduce Penalty For ‘Sexting’ Between Consenting Minors

Does Child Support Automatically Terminate if the Payor is Incarcerated?

2010-02-20T04:34:16Z

I receive calls every week from people who want information about child support issues. One such questions is, “If the person who must PAY child support is incarcerated, does the child support order automatically terminate?” No, it does not. In order to terminate (or lower) an existing child support order, the inmate must file a Motion for Modification with the court. The magistrate or judge hearing the motion will consider the inmate’s present income and any substantial assets owned by the inmate when determining the modified support order.

If the inmate was incarcerated for a crime against either the child or the custodial parent, however, the court will NOT reduce the existing child support order.