State v. Freeman
Citations
- 344 Conn. 503
Syllabus
Convicted, on a conditional plea of nolo contendere, of the crime of robbery in the first degree, the defendant appealed to the Appellate Court, claim- ing that his prosecution was time barred by the applicable five year statute of limitations ((Rev. to 2017) § 54-193 (b)) because, although the warrant for his arrest was issued two weeks before the expiration of felony. 4. Knowledge of the officer's presence may cause the suspected violator to cease the commission of a suspected felony before the officer obtains sufficient evidence to establish grounds for arrest.''). This case originally was scheduled to be argued before a panel of this court consisting of Chief Justice Robinson and Justices McDonald, D'Auria, Mullins, Kahn, Ecker and Keller. Although Justice Mullins was not present at oral argument, he has read the briefs and appendices, and listened to a recording of the oral argument prior to participating in this decision. 504 AUGUST, 2022 344 Conn. 503 State v. Freeman the limitation period set forth in § 54-193 (b), it was executed one week after its expiration. The defendant had filed a motion to dismiss, which the trial court denied, finding that, because there was at least some evidence that the state had made efforts to execute the warrant before the expiration of the limitation period, the delay in the execution of the warrant was reasonable. At the hearing on that motion, the prosecutor relied on a stipulation of facts setting forth a relevant chronology of events. The stipulation provided that, while incarcerated on unrelated charges in early November, 2018, the defendant confessed to his involve- ment in the robbery, which occurred on November 29, 2013. On Novem- ber 19, 2018, the police obtained a signed warrant for the defendant's arrest and requested that the Office of the State's Attorney prepare an application for a writ of habeas corpus to have the defendant transported from the correctional facility at which he was incarcerated to the trial cou
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- whether arrest warrant was executed in reasonable period of time for purposes of tolling statute of limitations under State v. Crawford, 202 Conn. 443, 450–51, 521 A.2d 1034 (1987)
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Robinson; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Kahn; Ecker; Keller
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
2 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
30 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Texas Department of Community Affairs v. BurdineSupreme Court· 1981-03-04· cited 15,585×
- Sergey Spitsyn v. Robert Moore, WardenNinth Circuit· 2003-11-03· cited 488×
- Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Department of Public Utility ControlSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1991-05-21· cited 238×
- State v. SinghSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2002-03-26· cited 212×
- Cologne v. Westfarms AssociatesSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1985-08-06· cited 117×
- Jacobs v. Healey Ford-Subaru, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1995-01-10· cited 102×
- In re Samantha C.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2004-04-27· cited 96×
- State v. AliSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1995-06-06· cited 72×
- Nelson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceTenth Circuit· 2005-08-17· cited 62×
- Kubeck v. Foremost Foods Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1983-07-19· cited 59×
- State v. CrawfordSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1987-03-10· cited 52×
- State v. NguyenSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2000-07-18· cited 50×
- Moore v. MooreSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1977-05-17· cited 46×
- Skakel v. StateSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2010-04-20· cited 37×
- State v. Courtney G.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2021-06-21· cited 30×
- Pretzantzin v. HolderSecond Circuit· 2013-07-31· cited 28×
- State v. LopezSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1996-08-20· cited 25×
- Constantine v. SchneiderConnecticut Appellate Court· 1998-07-14· cited 23×
- Jones v. StateSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2018-02-02· cited 22×
- State v. ChambersSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2010-05-25· cited 17×
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.