State v. Butler
Citations
- 348 Conn. 51
Syllabus
The defendant appealed to the Appellate Court, challenging the trial court's decision to grant the state's motion to open the judgment dismissing certain criminal charges, including risk of injury to a child, that had been filed against the defendant. The charges stemmed from an incident in which the defendant allegedly had inappropriate contact with a twelve year old child. After the charges were filed, the defendant applied for 52 SEPTEMBER, 2023 348 Conn. 51 State v. Butler and was granted admission to a statutory (§ 54-56l) two year, supervised diversionary program for individuals with psychiatric disabilities, which would lead to dismissal of the charges following his successful comple- tion thereof. As a condition to being admitted to the program, the defen- dant agreed that he would have no contact with minors, including in a volunteer or work capacity, and that he would not be present at any locations frequented by minors. Thereafter, the trial court received a report noting that the defendant had successfully completed the pro- gram, and it held a hearing to address the possible dismissal of the charges under § 54-56l (i). At that hearing, the prosecutor argued that the court should not grant a dismissal in light of a final progress report, issued by the Court Support Services Division, that indicated that the defendant had not satisfactorily completed the program, and in light of a letter from the defendant's probation officer that indicated that he received information from an anonymous source that the defendant had recently volunteered for an excursion sponsored by a local YMCA that involved minors. That letter also indicated that the defendant was not allowed to enter two local YMCAs due to certain undisclosed incidents and that he had unsuccessfully applied for employment positions as a camp counselor at a third local YMCA while he was participating in the program. That letter further indicated that the defendant had failed to report to his probation o
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- declining to address second certified question
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Robinson; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Moll
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
2 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
36 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Simms v. Warden, State PrisonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1994-08-09· cited 582×
- People v. KaramanCalifornia Supreme Court· 1992-12-21· cited 288×
- Billington v. BillingtonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1991-08-20· cited 218×
- Kenworthy v. KenworthySupreme Court of Connecticut· 1980-03-18· cited 131×
- State Ex Rel. Holmes v. DensonCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1984-06-27· cited 106×
- Chapman Lumber, Inc. v. TagerSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2008-07-22· cited 105×
- State v. WilsonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1986-04-22· cited 99×
- Stuart v. StuartSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2010-06-22· cited 82×
- Reed v. ReinckeSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1967-11-29· cited 79×
- Snow v. CaliseSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1978-04-10· cited 72×
- State v. LloydSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1981-08-04· cited 70×
- State v. RossSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1983-01-11· cited 62×
- State v. AvcollieSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1977-12-20· cited 46×
- State v. LuziettiSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1994-08-02· cited 46×
- Cichy v. KostykSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1956-07-17· cited 42×
- State v. ParkerSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2010-04-27· cited 42×
- Zaleski v. ClarkSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1877-12-15· cited 32×
- Wolfork v. Yale Medical GroupSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2020-04-22· cited 28×
- Department of Public Safety v. State Board of Labor RelationsSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2010-06-08· cited 27×
- Smith v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1981-01-27· cited 27×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.