All courts having jurisdiction of criminal cases shall at all times have jurisdiction and control over informations and criminal cases pending therein and may, at any time, upon motion by the defendant, dismiss any information and order such defendant discharged if, in the opinion of the court, there is not sufficient evidence or cause to justify the bringing or continuing of such information or the placing of the person accused therein on trial.
(1949 Rev., S. 8769.)
Cited. 170 C. 337. In absence of statutory authority, court may not of its own motion dismiss a criminal prosecution unless there is fundamental legal defect in information or indictment or constitutional defect such as denial of speedy trial or illegality of arrest. 172 C. 608. Cited. 189 C. 42; 193 C. 474; Id., 602; 198 C. 435; 200 C. 440. Trial court did not abuse its discretion having properly found “cause” to dismiss with prejudice. Id., 453. Cited. 204 C. 187; 207 C. 374; 209 C. 225; 213 C. 708; 214 C. 657; 229 C. 716; 242 C. 409. Absent compliance with section, trial court did not have authority to dismiss pending misdemeanor charge because, in trial court's view, case was not sufficiently important to warrant time and expense of jury trial. 243 C. 690. Dismissal of an information may be predicated upon either insufficient evidence or insufficient cause, but only in the most compelling of circumstances. 305 C. 330.
Cited. 4 CA 520; 5 CA 347; 7 CA 46; 8 CA 607; 11 CA 224. Insufficient cause “prong” of statute is inappropriate basis for dismissal of information preceded by arrest warrant where no trial has yet been held. 19 CA 495. Cited. 20 CA 321; 21 CA 210; 24 CA 195; 29 CA 689; 40 CA 789; 45 CA 722.
Purpose and history of law. 13 CS 112. Cited. 21 CS 246. Resort to section is not proper method to raise issue of jurisdiction of court over person of defendant. 28 CS 512. Purpose of motion to dismiss is to prevent unchecked powers by prosecuting attorney. 29 CS 118. Insufficient evidence and insufficient cause grounds of section may not be raised through pretrial dismissal motion in case where defendant was arrested on warrant signed by a judge. 49 CS 248.
Motion to dismiss count having been previously granted, motion for directed verdict on that count was properly denied. 5 Conn. Cir. Ct. 78.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
67
cases (
6 in the last 5 years), 1959–2025 · leading case:
State v. Peeler, 857 A.2d 808 (Conn. 2004).
State v. Peeler, 857 A.2d 808 (Conn. 2004).
· cites it 13× “374 , to dismiss the penaltyphase proceedings was improperbecause, by sanctioning a court’s exercise of discretion pursuant to General Statutes § 54-56, Daniels violates the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers, as set forth in article second of the state…”
State v. DeJesus, 953 A.2d 45 (Conn. 2008).
· cites it 10× “Indeed, the majority's universal rule of retrial will no doubt give pause to trial judges as to whether to exercise their discretion to dismiss these cases for insufficient evidence pursuant to General Statutes § 54-56. [30] State v. Kinchen, 243 Conn.”
State v. Daniels, 550 A.2d 885 (Conn. 1988).
· cites it 28× “In such circumstances, we determined that the trial court may pursue one of three courses of action: it may declare a mistrial; it may make factual findings “acquitting” the defendant of the death penalty; or it may exercise its discretion, pursuant to General Statutes § 54-56,…”
State v. Dills, 563 A.2d 733 (Conn. App. Ct. 1989).
· cites it 36× “This case requires us to resolve the apparent conflict between General Statutes § 54-56 1 and Practice Book §§ 815 (5) and 816.”
State v. Kinchen, 707 A.2d 1255 (Conn. 1998).
· cites it 27× “We conclude that, in the absence of compliance with the relevant statute, General Statutes § 54-56, the trial court did not have such authority.”
State v. Bellamy, 495 A.2d 724 (Conn. App. Ct. 1985).
· cites it 22× “Upon the defendant’s timely motion, the trial court dismissed the information on three separate bases: (1) there was no probable cause for the issuance of the warrant; (2) since the state’s “offer of proof” showed that no violation of General Statutes § 53a-183 could have been…”
State v. Corchado, 512 A.2d 183 (Conn. 1986).
· cites it 12× “We need not reach any question of whether constitutional principles of due process or fundamental fairness may be the basis for the inherent judicial authority to dismiss with prejudice a criminal case in the posture of the one before us because we draw upon General Statutes §…”
State v. Mitchell, 527 A.2d 1168 (Conn. 1987).
· cites it 8× “” See General Statutes § 54-56; Practice Book § 815 (5).”
State v. Pelella, 170 A.3d 647 (Conn. 2017).
· cites it 7× “The standard to be applied in determining whether the state can satisfy this burden in the context of a pretrial motion to dismiss under General Statutes § 54-56 and Practice Book § 41-8(5) is no different from the standard applied to other claims of evidentiary sufficiency.”
State v. Winer, 945 A.2d 430 (Conn. 2008).
· cites it 8× “ant thereafter filed two motions, which were ultimately consolidated in his *672 January 11,2005 pleading captioned, “Corrected Motion To Construe A Nolle And To Dismiss With Prejudice”: one motion to construe the charge as having been nolled and to dismiss with prejudice…”
State v. Angel C., 715 A.2d 652 (Conn. 1998).
· cites it 7× “30 If no Gerstein hearing is required, the defendant nonetheless has the opportunity to move to dismiss the charges pursuant to General Statutes § 54-56. 31 The court may dismiss the charges if it finds that there is inadequate evidence to support a finding of probable cause…”
State v. Daniels, 542 A.2d 306 (Conn. 1988).
· cites it 6× “See General Statutes § 54-56; State v. Corchado, 200 Conn.”
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.