Advance Release Opinions – August 30

Connecticut Supreme Court

Maio v. New Haven – Police officer sought indemnification under CGS § 53-39a for economic loss sustained in successfully defending charges of sexual assault and unlawful restraint alleged to have occurred while he was on extra duty at a nightclub. The statute provides indemnification if an officer is acquitted of crimes alleged to have occurred “in the course of his duty.” Trial court borrowed the “course of employment” definition from worker’s compensation law in defining “course of duty.” Trial court excluded the criminal trial testimony of the two complaining witnesses, finding that they were not “unavailable” to testify at the indemnification trial because defendant had not taken their depositions. Verdict for the officer. City appealed, arguing that “course of duty” and “course of employment” were not the same and that the complaining witnesses were indeed unavailable. Supreme Court affirmed as to the “course of duty” definition but reversed as to the unavailability of the complaining witnesses.