State v. Myer
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
****************************************************** 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. ****************************************************** STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. FRED MYER (AC 19069) Lavery, C. J., and Schaller and Daly, Js. Argued April 27 officially released August 8, 2000 Counsel Fred Myer, pro se, the appellant (defendant). John A. East III, assistant state s attorney, with whom, on the brief, were John A. Connelly, state s attorney, and Judith Rothschild-Rippe, assistant state s attorney, for the appellee (state). Opinion PER CURIAM. The defendant, Fred Myer, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of failing to abate a septic system overflow in violation of General Statutes § 19a-36 and the Public Health Code, Regs., Conn. State Agencies, § 19-13-B103c (f). The defendant claims, inter alia, that the trial court failed to conduct a proper waiver canvass as required by Practice Book § 44-31 prior to allowing him to proceed pro se. The state concedes that the court did not conduct a waiver canvass at any time during the pendency of the proceedings, and that the defendant is therefore entitled to a new trial. See State v. Miller, 55 Conn. App. 185, 189, 738 A.2d 1142 (1999) ( trial court s failure to conduct an adequate canvass to ensure that the defendant s waiver of the right to counsel was made knowingly and intelligently requires that the defendant be granted a new trial ). The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial.2 1 Practice Book § 44-3 provides: A defendant shall be permitted to waive the right to counsel and shall be permitted to represent himself or herself at any stage of the proceedings, either prior to or following the appointment of counsel. A waiver will be accepted only after the judicial authority makes a thorough inquiry and is satisfied that the defendant: (1) Has been clearly advised of the right to the assistance of counsel, including the right to the assignment of counsel when so entitled; (2) Possesses the intelligence and capacity to appreciate the consequences of the decision to represent oneself; (3) Comprehends the nature of the charges and proceedings, the range of permissible punishments, and any additional facts essential to a broad understanding of the case; and (4) Has been made aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation. 2 The defendant also claims that (1) he was not afforded reasonable accommodations for his hearing impairment, (2) the court improperly ordered him to pay the town of Woodbury $3616.35 as reimbursement for legal fees and (3) the court improperly instructed the jury. In light of our conclusion regarding the court s failure to canvass the defendant, we need not address these issues.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
