felony violation in Connecticut

2024The parties agree that the underlying charges brought against each defendant, respectively, are governed by the one year statute of limitations set forth in General Statutes § 54-193 (d)10 which provides that ‘‘[n]o person 10 General Statutes § 54-193 provides: ‘‘(a) There shall be no limitation of time within which a person may be prosecuted for (1) (A) a capital felony under the provisions of section 53a-54b in effect prior to April 25, 2012, a class A felony or a violation of section 53a-54d or 53a-169, or (B) any other offense involving sexual abuse, sexual exploitation or sexual assault i

2024The parties agree that the underlying charges brought against each defendant, respectively, are governed by the one year statute of limitations set forth in General Statutes § 54-193 (d)10 which provides that ‘‘[n]o person 10 General Statutes § 54-193 provides: ‘‘(a) There shall be no limitation of time within which a person may be prosecuted for (1) (A) a capital felony under the provisions of section 53a-54b in effect prior to April 25, 2012, a class A felony or a violation of section 53a-54d or 53a-169, or (B) any other offense involving sexual abuse, sexual exploitation or sexual assault i

2026Our Supreme Court has noted the legislature’s policy to allow for child sexual abuse victims, “who may be unable to come forward at the time the offense has occurred, a reasonable opportu- nity to report the abuse.” State v. George J., 280 Conn. 551, 574 , 910 A.2d 931 (2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 15 In his principal appellate brief to this court, the defendant argued that the state constitution’s due process clauses afford broader protec- tion than does the federal constitution.

2026Our Supreme Court has noted the legislature’s policy to allow for child sexual abuse victims, “who may be unable to come forward at the time the offense has occurred, a reasonable opportu- nity to report the abuse.” State v. George J., 280 Conn. 551, 574 , 910 A.2d 931 (2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 15 In his principal appellate brief to this court, the defendant argued that the state constitution’s due process clauses afford broader protec- tion than does the federal constitution.

2011“We are constrained to read a statute as written . . . and we may not read into clearly expressed legislation provisions which do not find expression in its words . . . .” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Giaimo v. New Haven, 257 Conn. 481, 494 , 778 A.2d 33 (2001); see also Fernandes v. Rodriguez, 255 Conn. 47, 58 , 761 A.2d 1283 (2000) *655 (“this court is precluded from substituting its own ideas of what might be a wise provision in place of a clear expression of legislative will”).

2011“We are constrained to read a statute as written . . . and we may not read into clearly expressed legislation provisions which do not find expression in its words . . . .” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Giaimo v. New Haven, 257 Conn. 481, 494 , 778 A.2d 33 (2001); see also Fernandes v. Rodriguez, 255 Conn. 47, 58 , 761 A.2d 1283 (2000) *655 (“this court is precluded from substituting its own ideas of what might be a wise provision in place of a clear expression of legislative will”).

2011As we discuss more fully in the text of this opinion, “a [probation] revocation proceeding ... is not a criminal proceeding”; (internal quotation marks omitted) State v. Faraday, 268 Conn. 174, 183 , 842 A.2d 567 (2004); and is not subject to the statute of limitations for criminal prosecutions. 8 The state argued to the trial court that “if . . . the statute of limitations starts at the time of the arrest,” then the continuances requested by the defendant should be excluded from the time calculation.

2011As we discuss more fully in the text of this opinion, “a [probation] revocation proceeding ... is not a criminal proceeding”; (internal quotation marks omitted) State v. Faraday, 268 Conn. 174, 183 , 842 A.2d 567 (2004); and is not subject to the statute of limitations for criminal prosecutions. 8 The state argued to the trial court that “if . . . the statute of limitations starts at the time of the arrest,” then the continuances requested by the defendant should be excluded from the time calculation.

2007See, State v. Ali, 233 Conn. 403 , 660 A.2d 337 (1995) (whether failure to instruct jury as to affirmative defense of statute of limitations improper); State v. Figueroa, 235 Conn. 145 , 665 A.2d 63 (1995) (whether trial court properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss charges against him on grounds that service of process was unreasonably delayed and state failed to prosecute within statute of limitations); State v. Crawford, 202 Conn. 443 , 521 A.2d 1034 (1987) (whether issuance of arrest warrant within period of limitation tolled statute); State v. Harrison, 34 Conn.App. 473 , 642 A.2d 3

2007See, State v. Ali, 233 Conn. 403 , 660 A.2d 337 (1995) (whether failure to instruct jury as to affirmative defense of statute of limitations improper); State v. Figueroa, 235 Conn. 145 , 665 A.2d 63 (1995) (whether trial court properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss charges against him on grounds that service of process was unreasonably delayed and state failed to prosecute within statute of limitations); State v. Crawford, 202 Conn. 443 , 521 A.2d 1034 (1987) (whether issuance of arrest warrant within period of limitation tolled statute); State v. Harrison, 34 Conn.App. 473 , 642 A.2d 3

2007See, State v. Ali, 233 Conn. 403 , 660 A.2d 337 (1995) (whether failure to instruct jury as to affirmative defense of statute of limitations improper); State v. Figueroa, 235 Conn. 145 , 665 A.2d 63 (1995) (whether trial court properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss charges against him on grounds that service of process was unreasonably delayed and state failed to prosecute within statute of limitations); State v. Crawford, 202 Conn. 443 , 521 A.2d 1034 (1987) (whether issuance of arrest warrant within period of limitation tolled statute); State v. Harrison, 34 Conn.App. 473 , 642 A.2d 3

2007See, State v. Ali, 233 Conn. 403 , 660 A.2d 337 (1995) (whether failure to instruct jury as to affirmative defense of statute of limitations improper); State v. Figueroa, 235 Conn. 145 , 665 A.2d 63 (1995) (whether trial court properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss charges against him on grounds that service of process was unreasonably delayed and state failed to prosecute within statute of limitations); State v. Crawford, 202 Conn. 443 , 521 A.2d 1034 (1987) (whether issuance of arrest warrant within period of limitation tolled statute); State v. Harrison, 34 Conn.App. 473 , 642 A.2d 3

2007See, State v. Ali, 233 Conn. 403 , 660 A.2d 337 (1995) (whether failure to instruct jury as to affirmative defense of statute of limitations improper); State v. Figueroa, 235 Conn. 145 , 665 A.2d 63 (1995) (whether trial court properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss charges against him on grounds that service of process was unreasonably delayed and state failed to prosecute within statute of limitations); State v. Crawford, 202 Conn. 443 , 521 A.2d 1034 (1987) (whether issuance of arrest warrant within period of limitation tolled statute); State v. Harrison, 34 Conn.App. 473 , 642 A.2d 3

2007See, State v. Ali, 233 Conn. 403 , 660 A.2d 337 (1995) (whether failure to instruct jury as to affirmative defense of statute of limitations improper); State v. Figueroa, 235 Conn. 145 , 665 A.2d 63 (1995) (whether trial court properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss charges against him on grounds that service of process was unreasonably delayed and state failed to prosecute within statute of limitations); State v. Crawford, 202 Conn. 443 , 521 A.2d 1034 (1987) (whether issuance of arrest warrant within period of limitation tolled statute); State v. Harrison, 34 Conn.App. 473 , 642 A.2d 3

2007See, State v. Ali, 233 Conn. 403 , 660 A.2d 337 (1995) (whether failure to instruct jury as to affirmative defense of statute of limitations improper); State v. Figueroa, 235 Conn. 145 , 665 A.2d 63 (1995) (whether trial court properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss charges against him on grounds that service of process was unreasonably delayed and state failed to prosecute within statute of limitations); State v. Crawford, 202 Conn. 443 , 521 A.2d 1034 (1987) (whether issuance of arrest warrant within period of limitation tolled statute); State v. Harrison, 34 Conn.App. 473 , 642 A.2d 3

2007See, State v. Ali, 233 Conn. 403 , 660 A.2d 337 (1995) (whether failure to instruct jury as to affirmative defense of statute of limitations improper); State v. Figueroa, 235 Conn. 145 , 665 A.2d 63 (1995) (whether trial court properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss charges against him on grounds that service of process was unreasonably delayed and state failed to prosecute within statute of limitations); State v. Crawford, 202 Conn. 443 , 521 A.2d 1034 (1987) (whether issuance of arrest warrant within period of limitation tolled statute); State v. Harrison, 34 Conn.App. 473 , 642 A.2d 3

2007See, State v. Ali, 233 Conn. 403 , 660 A.2d 337 (1995) (whether failure to instruct jury as to affirmative defense of statute of limitations improper); State v. Figueroa, 235 Conn. 145 , 665 A.2d 63 (1995) (whether trial court properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss charges against him on grounds that service of process was unreasonably delayed and state failed to prosecute within statute of limitations); State v. Crawford, 202 Conn. 443 , 521 A.2d 1034 (1987) (whether issuance of arrest warrant within period of limitation tolled statute); State v. Harrison, 34 Conn.App. 473 , 642 A.2d 3

2007See, State v. Ali, 233 Conn. 403 , 660 A.2d 337 (1995) (whether failure to instruct jury as to affirmative defense of statute of limitations improper); State v. Figueroa, 235 Conn. 145 , 665 A.2d 63 (1995) (whether trial court properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss charges against him on grounds that service of process was unreasonably delayed and state failed to prosecute within statute of limitations); State v. Crawford, 202 Conn. 443 , 521 A.2d 1034 (1987) (whether issuance of arrest warrant within period of limitation tolled statute); State v. Harrison, 34 Conn.App. 473 , 642 A.2d 3

2002A statute of limitations having to do with criminal offenses is to be "liberally interpreted in favor of repose." United States v. Habig , 390 U.S. 222 , 227 , 88 S.Ct. 926 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1055 (1968); United States v. Scharton , 285 U.S. 518 , 522 , 52 S.Ct. 416 , 76 L.Ed. 917 (1932).

2002A statute of limitations having to do with criminal offenses is to be "liberally interpreted in favor of repose." United States v. Habig , 390 U.S. 222 , 227 , 88 S.Ct. 926 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1055 (1968); United States v. Scharton , 285 U.S. 518 , 522 , 52 S.Ct. 416 , 76 L.Ed. 917 (1932).

2002A statute of limitations having to do with criminal offenses is to be "liberally interpreted in favor of repose." United States v. Habig , 390 U.S. 222 , 227 , 88 S.Ct. 926 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1055 (1968); United States v. Scharton , 285 U.S. 518 , 522 , 52 S.Ct. 416 , 76 L.Ed. 917 (1932).

2002A statute of limitations having to do with criminal offenses is to be "liberally interpreted in favor of repose." United States v. Habig , 390 U.S. 222 , 227 , 88 S.Ct. 926 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1055 (1968); United States v. Scharton , 285 U.S. 518 , 522 , 52 S.Ct. 416 , 76 L.Ed. 917 (1932).

1996State v. Crawford , 202 Conn. 443 , 452 , 521 A.2d 1034 (1987) (holding that the issuance of an arrest warrant is the initiation of "prosecution" under General Statutes § 54-193 (b)); State v. Salafia , 29 Conn. Sup. 305 , 315 , 284 A.2d 576 (1971).

1996State v. Crawford , 202 Conn. 443 , 452 , 521 A.2d 1034 (1987) (holding that the issuance of an arrest warrant is the initiation of "prosecution" under General Statutes § 54-193 (b)); State v. Salafia , 29 Conn. Sup. 305 , 315 , 284 A.2d 576 (1971).

1989Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, 794 , 89 S. Ct. 2056 , 23 L.

1989Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, 794 , 89 S. Ct. 2056 , 23 L.