State v. Orane C.
Citations
- 350 Conn. 815
Syllabus
The defendant appealed, on the granting of certification, from the judgment of the Appellate Court, which had affirmed his conviction of three counts of sexual assault in the first degree. The defendant claimed that the Appellate Court, in upholding the trial court's denial of his motion to dismiss count two of the state's February, 2020 substitute information, incorrectly con- cluded that the second count was not time barred by the applicable five year statute of limitations ((Rev. to 2013) § 54-193 (b)). Held: Count two of the state's February, 2020 substitute information, which alleged conduct that had occurred on or about January 1, 2014, at a particular address and which the state first included in the February, 2020 substitute information, was filed more than five years after the date on which the conduct allegedly occurred. Count two substantially broadened or amended the charges that were con- tained in the state's previous, timely filed short and long form informations, which alleged conduct that occurred in 2017 at or near a different location than that at which the 2014 conduct occurred, and which made no mention of the 2014 conduct, and, thus, the untimely filed charge in count two did not relate back to the timely filed charges in the state's previous informations. Although the defendant, through the timely filed informations, received notice within the limitation period that he would be called on to defend against charges relating to the 2017 conduct, he did not receive notice within the limitation period that he would be called on to defend against the 2014 conduct, and an affidavit that the state submitted in 2018 in support of a warrant for the defendant's arrest that referred to the 2014 conduct charged in count two did not toll the statute of limitations, as an arrest warrant In accordance with our policy of protecting the privacy interests of the victims of sexual assault, we decline to identify the victim or others through whom the victim's iden
Judges: McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Ecker; Dannehy
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced 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.