******************************************************The ‘‘officially released’’ date that appears near thebeginning of each opinion is the date the opinion willbe published in the Connecticut Law Journal or thedate it was released as a slip opinion. The operativedate for the beginning of all time periods for filinpostopinion motions and petitions for certification isthe ‘‘officially released’’ date appearing in the opinion.In no event will any such motions be accepted beforethe ‘‘officially released’’ date. Allopinionsaresubjecttomodificationandtechnicalcorrection prior to official publication in the Connecti-cut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In theevent of discrepancies between the electronic versionof an opinion and the print version appearing in theConnecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Con-necticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, thelatest print version is to be considered authoritative.The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on OfficialLegal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board ServiceandintheConnecticutLawJournalandboundvolumesof official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be repro-duced and distributed without the express written per-mission of the Commission on Official LegalPublications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.******************************************************
 
MINNIE GONZALEZ
 v.
 STATE ELECTIONSENFORCEMENT COMMISSION(AC 33651)
DiPentima, C. J., and Beach and Robinson, Js.
 Argued March 11—officially released September 10, 2013
(Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of NewBritain, Schuman, J.)
Thomas J. Weihing
, with whom, on the brief, was
 John T. Bochanis
, for the appellant-cross appellee(plaintiff).
 Maura Murphy Osborne
, assistant attorney general,with whom, on the brief, was
 George Jepsen,
 attorneygeneral, for the appellee-cross appellant (defendant).
 
Opinion
ROBINSON, J.The plaintiff staterepresentative, Min-nie Gonzalez, appeals from the judgment of the trialcourt denying in part her appeal from the decision of the defendant, the State Elections Enforcement Com-mission, finding that she committed four violations of being knowingly present during the execution of anabsentee ballot in violation of General Statutes § 9-140b(e). The trial court reversed the finding as to two of the four violations and remanded the matter to thedefendant to reconsider the fine assessed. On appeal,the plaintiff claims that the two remaining violationsshould be reversed because (1) the trial court erred infailing to conclude that her due process right to a fair hearing was violated when the hearing officer and thedefendant prejudged her case; (2) the trial court erredin finding that the hearing officer’s decision was notarbitrary and capricious because (a) there was not sub-stantial evidence to support the two remaining viola-tionsand(b)thehearingofficerignoredthedefendant’sfailure to provide exculpatory statements and madeerroneous factual findings pertaining to the failure; (3)the trial court erred in finding that the hearing officer  properly excluded certain written statements; and (4)the plaintiff was substantially prejudiced by the delayin prosecution. The defendant cross appeals claimingthat the trial court erred in reversing two of the four  violations found by the defendant because there wassubstantial evidence to support those violations. Weaffirm the judgment on the appeal and reverse the judg-ment on the cross appeal.The following facts, as found by the hearing officer,and procedural history are necessary for our resolutionof this appeal and cross appeal. On November 1, 2006,Michael Barry, a Hartford resident, filed a complaintwith the defendant alleging that on the previous day,while completing an absenteeballot at the clerk’s officeat the city hall in Hartford, he observed the plaintiff,who was seeking reelection, talking to four people inSpanish while at least three of them were completingtheir absentee ballots.
1
He further alleged that after oneof the voters, Raul Rivera, completed his ballot, the plaintiff took his envelope to the counter where voterssigned in. Barry stated that he called the town clerkand the defendant to report what he had witnessed. A hearing before hearing officer Stephen F. Cashmantook place on this matter on June 10, 2009, July 9, 2009,and July 17, 2009.
2
The plaintiff was alleged to havecommitted one violation of § 9-140b (d) for possessingthe absentee ballot of Raul Rivera, and five violationsof § 9-140b (e) for being knowingly present when RaulRivera, Jennie Rivera, Jose Echevarria, Maria Echevar-ria and Barry executed their absentee ballots.
3
The hearing officer issued his final decision on
View on Scribd