Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-582 (2026)

Petition for new trial

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) No petition for a new trial in any civil or criminal proceeding shall be brought but within three years next after the rendition of the judgment or decree complained of, except that a petition for a new trial in a criminal proceeding based on DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) evidence or other newly discovered evidence, as described in subsection (b) of this section, that was not discoverable or available at the time of the original trial or at the time of any previous petition under this section, may be brought at any time after the discovery or availability of such new evidence, and the court may grant the petition if the court finds that had such evidence been presented at trial, there is a reasonable likelihood there would have been a different outcome at the trial.

(b) (1) Such newly discovered evidence in support of a petition for a new trial may include newly discovered forensic scientific evidence that was not discoverable or available at the time of the original trial or original or previous petition for a new trial, as determined by the court under subdivision (2) of this subsection, including that which might undermine any forensic scientific evidence presented at the original trial.

(2) The court shall consider whether relevant forensic scientific evidence was not discoverable or available at the time of the original trial based upon a consideration of whether the relevant scientific evidence has changed since the applicable trial date or dates, or date of entry of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, or the date of the most recent petition under this section.

(c) No provision of this section shall be construed to create a civil or criminal liability for an expert witness who repudiates the forensic scientific evidence such witness provided at a previous hearing or trial or included in a previous petition or who offered such evidence that has since been undermined by later scientific research or technological advancements.

(d) For purposes of this section, “forensic” means the application of scientific or technical practices to the recognition, collection, analysis and interpretation of evidence for criminal and civil law or regulatory issues, “forensic scientific evidence” includes scientific knowledge or technical knowledge, reports or testimony by forensic analysts or experts, and scientific standards or a scientific method or technique upon which the relevant scientific evidence is based, and “scientific knowledge” includes knowledge of the general scientific community and all fields of scientific knowledge upon which those fields or disciplines rely.

(1949 Rev., S. 8322; P.A. 00-80, S. 2, 3; P.A. 18-61, S. 1.)

History: P.A. 00-80 added exception authorizing a petition based on DNA evidence not discoverable or available at time of original trial to be brought at any time after the discovery or availability of the new evidence, effective May 16, 2000, and applicable to any offense committed prior to, on or after that date; P.A. 18-61 designated existing provisions re petition for new trial as Subsec. (a) and amended same by adding provisions re exceptions allowing petition for new trial to be brought, added Subsec. (b) re newly discovered evidence in support of petition for new trial, added Subsec. (c) re civil or criminal liability, and added Subsec. (d) defining “forensic”, “forensic scientific evidence” and “scientific knowledge”.

The “rendition” is the time when judgment was actually entered. 1 R. 54. Complaint for equitable relief from judgment obtained without notice should be seasonably brought. 46 C. 605. Petition for new trial may be brought under this section despite Sec. 52-212, though judgment was by default. 93 C. 160; 97 C. 123. Cited. 138 C. 573; 140 C. 464. Effect of 3-year limitation not decided. 142 C. 20. “Rendition of judgment” is judgment at the trial court where it is sustained on appeal. 181 C. 58. Cited. 214 C. 464; 229 C. 397; 230 C. 427.

Cited. 3 CA 322; 24 CA 152; 25 CA 155; 27 CA 621. Statute of limitations was not tolled by respondent's alleged fraudulent concealment of evidence because petitioner failed to present evidence that respondent had fraudulently concealed evidence. 111 CA 656. Section's mandatory language and lack of a good cause exception indicate the legislature intended the three year limitations period set forth in the section to be a jurisdictional bar; petitioner's failure to comply with the time limitation deprived the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction to consider the petition for a new trial or to apply any equitable tolling doctrine to extend the limitations period. 172 CA 352. Legislature intended for newly discovered evidence under this section to include only newly discovered forensic evidence. 215 CA 592. Three year limitation period prescribed in section may be tolled by a showing of fraudulent concealment pursuant to Sec. 52-595. 216 CA 126.

Must be determined solely upon its own issues and without regard to questions raised by appeal from judgment. 20 CS 469. Imposition of sentence is final judgment in criminal cases and stay of execution does not affect time limit for bringing appeal. 36 CS 53. Cited. 37 CS 891; 38 CS 534.

Motion for new trial not equivalent to petition for new trial. 3 Conn. Cir. Ct. 388.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)

(Return to
List of Chapters)

(Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 56 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1963–2026 · leading case: Randolph v. Mambrino, 216 Conn. App. 126 (Conn. App. Ct. 2022).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Randolph v. Mambrino, 216 Conn. App. 126 (Conn. App. Ct. 2022). · cites it 46× “1 General Statutes § 52-595 provides: ‘‘If any person, liable to an action by another, fraudulently conceals from him the existence of the cause of such action, such cause of action shall be deemed to accrue against such person so liable therefor at the time when the person…”

Turner v. State, 160 A.3d 398 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017). · cites it 25× “1 The petitioner concedes that he filed his petition outside of the three year limitations period set forth in General Statutes § 52-582. 2 Instead, he claims that the trial court improperly failed to exercise its equitable power to toll the statute of limitations, thereby…”

Skakel v. State, 991 A.2d 414 (Conn. 2010). · cites it 12× “[1] In accordance with the three year limitations period under General Statutes § 52-582, [2] in 2005, while a decision on that appeal was pending, the petitioner filed a petition for a new trial, pursuant to *418 General Statutes § 52-270(a), [3] on the ground of newly…”

In re Jonathan M., 764 A.2d 739 (Conn. 2001). · cites it 5× “See General Statutes § 52-582. 29 Under this option, a parent whose rights have been terminated has three years within which to file a petition.”

Howard v. Robertson, 608 A.2d 711 (Conn. App. Ct. 1992). · cites it 9× “General Statutes § 52-582. 3 In the present case, the trial court filed its decision on February 3,1986.”

Gould v. Comm'r of Corr., 301 Conn. 544 (Conn. 2011). · cites it 4× “Indeed, such an approach might be reconciled with the statutory limitation period for filing a petition for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence because DNA, one form of irrefutable exculpatory evidence, is not subject to the statute of limitations.”

Labow v. Labow, 796 A.2d 592 (Conn. App. Ct. 2002). · cites it 5× “2d 1356 (1994), the court concluded that the statute of limitations, General Statutes § 52-582, barred the petition for a new trial and that the court therefore lacked subject matter jurisdiction.”

Kaddah v. Comm'r of Corr., 153 A.3d 1233 (Conn. 2017). · cites it 2× “to protect parental interests, including the heightened "vigilance" of trial judges in termination proceedings, direct appeal from the judgment of termination, rules of practice providing review by an independent attorney in the event of a withdrawal by counsel, statutory and…”

Dist. Attorney's Off. for the Third Jud. Dist. v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52 (2009). “§ 18-1-413 (2008); Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-582 (2009); Del. Code Ann.”

State v. Ross, 646 A.2d 1318 (Conn. 1994). · cites it 2× “” General Statutes § 52-470 (b) provides: “No appeal from the judgment rendered in a habeas corpus proceeding brought in order to obtain his release by or in behalf of one who has been convicted of crime may be taken unless the appellant, within ten days after the case is…”

Summerville v. Warden, State Prison, 641 A.2d 1356 (Conn. 1994). · cites it 2× ““No petition for a new trial in any civil or criminal proceeding shall be brought but within three years next after the rendition of the judgment or decree complained of.”

Thompson v. Comm'r of Corr., 158 A.3d 814 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017). · cites it 5× “the standards governing the issuance of the writ based on a claim of actual innocence are not, however, necessarily the same as those governing a petition for a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence. Employing the same standard for both petitions would ignore the…”

Show all 56 citing cases →

— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-582(a) — 2 cases

Turner v. State, 160 A.3d 398 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017). “1 The petitioner concedes that he filed his petition outside of the three year limitations period set forth in General Statutes § 52-582. 2 Instead, he claims that the trial court improperly failed to exercise its equitable power to toll the statute of limitations, thereby…”

Nelson v. Preleski (D. Conn. 2020).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.