181 Conn. App. 68
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- McMahon was deputy chief of police for Middletown in a classified position requiring "just cause" for termination; he served as acting chief and was later subject to an investigation after anonymous allegations he drank while armed and in uniform.
- An investigator (Daigle) concluded McMahon drank while wearing badge/sidearm and made false/misleading statements; the new mayor (Drew) held a Loudermill hearing and terminated McMahon immediately after McMahon’s statement.
- McMahon sued the city for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; the claims against Daigle were withdrawn pretrial.
- At the bench trial, after McMahon’s testimony he called four city witnesses; his counsel sought permission to use leading questions on direct for each witness—permission was granted for the personnel director but denied for the mayor, the mayor-elect (Drew), and the acting deputy chief (McKenna).
- The trial court found McMahon had consumed alcohol while armed and deliberately lied, concluding there was just cause to terminate; judgment entered for the city.
- On appeal McMahon’s sole claim was that the trial court violated Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-178 by denying leading questions on direct of adverse party witnesses; the city argued the claim was unpreserved.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denying permission to ask leading questions on direct contradicted § 52-178 | McMahon: § 52-178 requires permitting leading examination of adverse parties/agents on direct, so the court had no discretion to deny | City: Claim was not preserved at trial and, alternatively, the court had discretion over evidentiary procedure | Appeal dismissed for lack of preservation; court declined to review the unpreserved statutory claim |
| Whether the preservation rule may be satisfied by "functionally" raising the statute at trial | McMahon: His repeated requests to lead "functionally" raised the statutory issue | City: Requests did not put the court on notice of the statutory claim | Court: Requests did not preserve the specific statutory argument; counsel accepted rulings and made no proffers or statutory argument at trial |
| Whether plain error or public-welfare exceptions justify review | McMahon: Raised plain error and public-welfare as alternative bases for review | City: Exceptions inapplicable and inadequately pleaded | Court: Denied both—record does not show an obvious, debate-free error nor manifest injustice; public-welfare argument inadequately briefed |
| Whether the court abused discretion in denying leading questions | McMahon: Framed primarily as statutory right (not abuse-of-discretion) | City: Even if not statutory, evidentiary rulings are discretionary | Court: Did not reach discretionary-abuse review because statutory claim was unpreserved; noted court had offered leave to reconsider and allowed leading questions in at least one instance |
Key Cases Cited
- Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (U.S. 1985) (procedural due process hearing requirement for termination of certain public employees)
- White v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc., 313 Conn. 610 (Conn. 2014) (explaining preservation requirement and that claims must be distinctly raised at trial)
- State v. Santana, 313 Conn. 461 (Conn. 2014) (courts may sometimes review claims not explicitly raised if the substance was argued at trial)
- DiGiuseppe v. DiGiuseppe, 174 Conn. App. 855 (Conn. App. 2017) (discussing Practice Book preservation rules and the need to state issues distinctly to the trial court)