168 Conn. App. 255
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- Two rottweilers owned by Kim Miller attacked Cynthia Reed on Oct. 3, 2012; Reed suffered severe bite injuries requiring hospitalization. Hamden animal control officer Christopher Smith issued disposal (euthanasia) orders for both dogs under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22-358.
- Miller appealed the disposal orders to the Commissioner of the Department of Agriculture. A hearing officer (Bruce Sherman) conducted a formal UAPA hearing; he issued a proposed final decision recommending affirmance.
- The commissioner reviewed the record, heard oral argument, and affirmed the disposal orders. Miller appealed to Superior Court, which dismissed her appeal; Miller then appealed to the Appellate Court.
- Miller raised constitutional and procedural objections to the hearing officer’s conduct and evidence rulings: (1) Sixth Amendment confrontation clause violation because victim and an eyewitness (Reed and Jones) did not testify and their statements were admitted as hearsay; (2) hearing officer forced a defense witness (Hudson) to leave before testifying, denying due process; (3) unlawful procedure because the Department allegedly had no written, dog-disposal–specific hearing rules; and (4) hearing officer acted arbitrarily by interjecting his own opinion while questioning a witness.
- The commissioner and trial court found substantial, reliable evidence that the bites were severe and that disposal orders were appropriate; the Appellate Court affirmed dismissal of Miller’s appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were Reed’s and Jones’s out-of-court statements admissible without violating the Sixth Amendment confrontation right? | Miller: administrative hearing was quasi-criminal so confrontation rights applied; statements admitted without cross-examination violated Sixth Amendment. | Dept./Hamden: disposal appeal is civil/remedial under §22-358 and UAPA allows hearsay if reliable and probative; Miller could have subpoenaed witnesses. | Held: No Sixth Amendment violation; the proceeding is civil, hearsay admissible in UAPA hearings when reliable and probative. |
| Did the hearing officer improperly force Miller’s witness (Hudson) to leave, depriving Miller of due process? | Miller: Hudson, an essential witness, was forced out despite a medical condition, so Miller lost testimony. | Dept.: Hearing officer warned against disruption but did not force Hudson out; Miller never proffered Hudson’s expected testimony or sought continuance/subpoena. | Held: No unlawful procedure or prejudice shown; claim fails for lack of proffer and record support. |
| Was the proceeding unlawful because the Department lacked written rules specific to dog disposal hearings? | Miller: Department had no dog-disposal–specific written procedures, so hearing officer relied only on general UAPA rules, violating due process. | Dept.: Parties were given notice that hearing followed UAPA and department practice rules; Miller did not raise this issue below. | Held: Claim unpreserved (raised first on appeal); appellate court declines to review. |
| Did the hearing officer act arbitrarily/capriciously by interjecting his opinion while questioning a witness? | Miller: Hearing officer injected his veterinary opinion, crossing neutral role and biasing factfinding. | Dept.: Occasional questioning by adjudicator is permissible; the comment was innocuous and neutral. | Held: Claim inadequately briefed/abandoned on appeal; court declines to review merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tele Tech of Connecticut Corp. v. Dept. of Public Utility Control, 270 Conn. 778 (review standard for administrative appeals) (establishes §4-183(j) grounds and substantial evidence review)
- MacDermid, Inc. v. Dept. of Environmental Protection, 257 Conn. 128 (2001) (UAPA scope of review is restricted; courts assess substantial evidence)
- Okeke v. Commissioner of Public Health, 304 Conn. 317 (administrative factfinding and review principles)
- United States v. Zucker, 161 U.S. 475 (distinguishing criminal prosecutions for Sixth Amendment applicability)
- Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602 (Sixth Amendment protections limited to criminal prosecutions)
- United States v. Ursery, 518 U.S. 267 (civil and criminal sanctions may both attach to same act)
- Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400 (application of confrontation rights to states via Fourteenth Amendment)