Here’s a look at the second week of the Connecticut Supreme Court’s November 2016 term:

Monday, November 14th

The Court starts the week by hearing oral arguments in two criminal cases. In State v. Tilus, SC 19503, an appeal from a robbery conviction of a convenience store, the Court will consider whether a prosecutor equating the defendant’s claim that the victim-convenience store operated an illegal lottery with arguing that a sexual assault victim was a prostitute constituted prosecutorial impropriety. In Taylor v. Commissioner of Correction, SC 19462, the Court will decide if a trial court’s error in sealing the contents of a juror’s note without first sharing it with defense counsel is subject to harmless error analysis.

Tuesday, November 15th

In Ars Investers II 2012-1 HVB, LLC v. Crystal, LLC, et al., SC 19661, the Court will decide whether subdivisions of parcels of land that had not been approved by the local zoning authority could be subject to a judgment of foreclosure. The second case, State v. Davis, SC 19511, is the State’s appeal from an Appellate Court decision reversing a conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm for insufficient evidence as to whether the defendant had a permit to lawfully possess a firearm.

Wednesday, November 16th

The first case of the day is Channing Real Estate, LLC v. Gates, SC 19575, where the Court will consider whether the unfair trade practices act applies to disputes within corporate entities such that one party to a joint venture can make a claim against its joint venture partner.  In the second case, Connecticut National Mortgage Company v. Knudsen, SC 19672, the Court will decide the circumstances when a judgment of strict foreclosure becomes stayed by an appeal.

Thursday, November 17th

The November term comes to an end with a criminal case and professional responsibility case. In State v. Reyes, SC 19712, the defendant asks the Court to reconsider its adoption of a reasonable doubt instruction using the phrase “firmly convinced” in State v. Jackson, 238 Conn. 111 (2007) (disclaimer: the author argued Jackson as an assistant state’s attorney). Finally, in Horner v. Bagnell, SC 19700, the Court will consider whether a division of a contingency fee between attorneys after the dissolution of a law firm violates Rule 1.5(e) of the rules of professional conduct in the absence of the client’s written approval.