No. CV 99 0173842 S
July 8, 2003
The plaintiff asks the court to open the judgment rendered April 21, 2003. On that day, the court granted the defendant's motion to set aside the jury verdict against her on the grounds of statutory theft because it determined that there was insufficient evidence for the jury to find theft by clear and convincing proof. The plaintiff argues that in so doing, the court applied an erroneous standard of proof and that proof that by a preponderance of the evidence is the correct standard.
After full review of the existing law, and oral argument by the parties, the court concludes that the proper standard of proof of statutory theft under Conn. General Statutes § 52-564 remains clear and convincing evidence. Shaffer v. Lindy, 8 Conn. App. 96, 511 A.2d 1022 (1986); Suarez-Negrete v. Trotta, 47 Conn. App. 517, 705 A.2d 215 (1998). Shaffer was not overruled by Freeman v. Alamo Management Co., 221 Conn. 674, 607 A.2d 370 (1992), nor has any Supreme Court or Appellate Court case overruled Shaffer or Suarez-Negrete. The Freeman case does contain comment challenging the broad sweep of certain language in the Shaffer case, but this dicta does not change the requirement that violation of § 52-564 and entitlement to treble damages thereunder must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.
The plaintiff's Motion To Open The Judgment is denied.
BY THE COURT