Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 54 — CRIMINAL PROCEDURE · Chapter 967 — General Provisions
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-194 (2026)

Effect of the repeal of a criminal statute

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The repeal of any statute defining or prescribing the punishment for any crime shall not affect any pending prosecution or any existing liability to prosecution and punishment therefor, unless expressly provided in the repealing statute that such repeal shall have that effect.

(1949 Rev., S. 8872.)

See Sec. 1-1 re words and phrases in general use throughout statutes.

Cited. 121 C. 200; 142 C. 29; 152 C. 81; 171 C. 524, 528. Repeal of any statute defining a crime shall not affect pending prosecutions thereunder unless expressly provided in repealing statute. 172 C. 242. Cited. 198 C. 158. Court declines to overrule State v. Kalil, 314 C. 529, and adopt the amelioration doctrine as it relates to section. 337 C. 739.

Cited. 22 CA 601. There is no express language in P.A. 11-71 or any indication in the legislative history that the legislature clearly and unequivocally intended P.A. 11-71 to apply retroactively and thus the savings statutes apply and the law in effect at the time of defendant's offense for possession of marijuana and use of drug paraphernalia controls. 147 CA 232; judgment reversed in part on alternate grounds, see 315 C. 861.

Cited. 29 CS 132; Id., 333.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1971–2023 · leading case: State v. Bischoff, 337 Conn. 739 (Conn. 2021).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Bischoff, 337 Conn. 739 (Conn. 2021). · cites it 32× “Syllabus Pursuant to statute (§ 54-194), ‘‘[t]he repeal of any statute defining or pre- scribing the punishment for any crime shall not affect any pending prosecutions or any existing liability to prosecution and punishment therefor, unless expressly provided in the repealing…”
State v. Gonzalez, 214 Conn. App. 511 (Conn. App. Ct. 2022). · cites it 11× “In declining to adopt the amelioration doctrine, our Supreme Court noted that, in determining whether a change in a criminal statute prescribing punishment applies retroactively, the court is bound by the presumption against retroactivity contained in our criminal savings…”
State v. Moore, 182 A.3d 696 (Conn. App. Ct. 2018). · cites it 5× “"This principle is derived from the legislature's enactment of savings statutes such as General Statutes § 54-194, which provides that '[t]he repeal of any statute defining or prescribing the punishment for any crime shall not affect any pending prosecution or any existing…”
State v. Carbone, 374 A.2d 215 (Conn. 1977). · cites it 4× “Section 54-194 of the General Statutes, however, provides: “The repeal of any statute defining or prescribing the punishment for any crime shall not affect any pending prosecution or any existing liability to prosecution and punishment therefor, unless expressly provided in the…”
State v. Menditto, 80 A.3d 923 (Conn. App. Ct. 2013). · cites it 8× “2d 1158 (2000), and concluded that the “savings statutes”; see General Statutes § 1-1 (t) 7 and General Statutes § 54-194 8 ; precluded dismissal.”
State v. Smith, 209 Conn. App. 296 (Conn. App. Ct. 2021). · cites it 6× “’’ 5 General Statutes § 54-194 provides: ‘‘The repeal of any statute defining or prescribing the punishment for any crime shall not affect any pending prosecution or any existing liability to prosecution and punishment therefor, unless expressly provided in the repealing statute…”
State v. Harris, 502 A.2d 880 (Conn. 1985). · cites it 3× “The defendant urges us to find implied in the act the legislative intent that all prosecutions under General Statutes § 53a-40 pending as of July 1, 1981, be void and that all defendants then facing charges under § 53a-40 be tried under the amended version of the statute.”
State v. Omar, 209 Conn. App. 283 (Conn. App. Ct. 2021). · cites it 14× “529 ), certain statutes (§§ 54-194 and 1-1 (t)), which create the presumption that changes to criminal statutes prescribing or defining punishment apply prospectively only unless such statutes expressly state otherwise, applied to § 53a-28 (b), a criminal statute that prescribes…”
Davis v. Comm'r of Corr., 37 A.3d 758 (Conn. App. Ct. 2012). · cites it 4× “The legislature has enacted "savings statutes as reflected in General Statutes § 54-194, which provides that `[t]he repeal of any statute defining or prescribing the punishment for any crime shall not affect any pending prosecution or any existing liability to prosecution and…”
State v. Bischoff, 206 A.3d 253 (Conn. App. Ct. 2019). · cites it 2× “It also rejected the defendant's argument as to the amelioration doctrine, which provides that amendments that reduce a statutory penalty for a criminal offense are applied retroactively.”
State v. Cote, 46 A.3d 256 (Conn. App. Ct. 2012). · cites it 2× ““The legislature has enacted savings statutes as reflected in General Statutes § 54-194, which provides that [t]he repeal of any statute defining or prescribing the punishment for any crime shall not affect any pending prosecution or any existing liability to prosecution and…”
State v. DeMartin, 370 A.2d 1038 (Conn. 1976). · cites it 2× “The defendant challenges the state’s right to charge him under General Statutes § 54-197 after its effective repeal date, i.”
Show all 26 citing cases →
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.