A nolle prosequi may not be entered as to any count in a complaint or information if the accused objects to the nolle prosequi and demands either a trial or dismissal, except with respect to prosecutions in which a nolle prosequi is entered upon a representation to the court by the prosecuting official that a material witness has died, disappeared or become disabled or that material evidence has disappeared or has been destroyed and that a further investigation is therefore necessary.
(P.A. 80-313, S. 30.)
Cited. 180 C. 153. The court must accept the entry of nolle prosequi for the record unless it is persuaded that prosecutor's exercise of discretion is clearly contrary to manifest public interest. 185 C. 199. Cited. 191 C. 27; 198 C. 435. Entry of nolles over defendant's objection fits within exception to rule of finality allowing appeal of interlocutory trial court rulings that, if erroneous, cannot later be remedied. 209 C. 52. Gives defendant the right to have criminal charge disposed of with finality by dismissal with prejudice. Id., 133. Cited. 214 C. 616; 233 C. 44; 240 C. 590. Trial court properly allowed the entry of nolle prosequi based on the state's representations that a key witness against defendant was unavailable due to the witness' intent to assert his fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination, and the court was not required to conduct an evidentiary hearing re the state's representations; nolle prosequi functionally converted into a dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Sec. 54-142a(c) after 13 months had elapsed, therefore the state was not barred from bringing charges against defendant 4 years later and defendant's right to a speedy trial was not violated. 289 C. 598. Prosecutor representations that key witness suffered from a disability that prevented her from being able to testify fell within range of good faith disagreement re meaning of “disabled” under section and trial court properly deferred to prosecutor's exercise of discretion. 331 C. 658.
Cited. 5 CA 347; 10 CA 217; 11 CA 224; 40 CA 705; judgment reversed, see 240 C. 590; 44 CA 162. Defendant's objection to entry of nolle made 7 weeks after it had been entered was not timely and fell outside limited jurisdiction retained by the court following the entry of nolle. 111 CA 397. Defendant's infraction ticket was a complaint and, therefore, he was entitled to object to the entry of nolle and demand a trial or a dismissal. 143 CA 194. The phrase “has . . . become disabled” does not mean “unavailable” and was not intended to extend to instances in which the state lacks the ability to compel a witness to testify at trial; the term “disappeared” does not mean absent from the jurisdiction. 179 CA 676.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
39
cases (
7 in the last 5 years), 1981–2025 · leading case:
State v. Richard P., 181 A.3d 107 (Conn. App. Ct. 2018).
State v. Richard P., 181 A.3d 107 (Conn. App. Ct. 2018).
· cites it 35× “1 The state claims that the court improperly dismissed the case because it had sufficiently represented to the court that a material witness had "died, disappeared or become disabled" within the meaning of General Statutes § 54-56b and Practice Book § 39-30.”
State v. Smith, 960 A.2d 993 (Conn. 2008).
· cites it 10× “8 On December 5, 2001, after the defendant had moved for a speedy trial, the state entered a nolle prosequi of the charges pursuant to the missing witness provision of General Statutes § 54-56b 9 and Practice Book § 39-30.”
State v. Talton, 547 A.2d 543 (Conn. 1988).
· cites it 16× “In support of its attempt to enter a nolle, the state argued that the changes in anticipated testimony were equivalent to the disappearance of material witnesses and, under General Statutes § 54-56b 3 and Practice Book § 726, 4 *136 it was entitled to have a nolle enter.”
State v. Owen, 207 A.3d 17 (Conn. 2019).
· cites it 24× “The issue presented in this appeal is whether the trial court properly determined that the prosecutor did not abuse her discretion in a manner clearly contrary to manifest public interest when she entered a nolle prosequi on the basis that the state's material witness had become…”
Cislo v. City of Shelton, 692 A.2d 1255 (Conn. 1997).
· cites it 8× “The trial court declined to dismiss the case and accepted the entry of the nolle *595 pursuant to [General Statutes § 54-56b 5 and] Practice Book § 726.”
State v. Winer, 945 A.2d 430 (Conn. 2008).
· cites it 4× “13 In Connecticut, a nolle may enter either by operation of law pursuant to a proper application of § 54-142a (c) or expressly at the request of the state pursuant to General Statutes § 54-56b, which, although not itself a speedy trial guarantee, provides the defendant with the…”
State v. Richardson, 969 A.2d 166 (Conn. 2009).
· cites it 5× “information if the accused objects to the nolle prosequi and demands either atrial or dismissal, except with respect to prosecutions in which a nolle prosequi is entered upon representation to the court by the prosecuting official that a material witness has died, disappeared or…”
Cislo v. City of Shelton, 673 A.2d 134 (Conn. App. Ct. 1996).
· cites it 8× “” See also General Statutes § 54-56b, which provides: “A nolle prosequi may not be entered as to any count in a complaint or information if the accused objects to the nolle prosequi and demands either a trial or dismissal, except with respect to the prosecutions in which a nolle…”
State v. Herring, 547 A.2d 6 (Conn. 1988).
· cites it 6× “4 When the state indicated that it intended to enter nolles, the defendant objected and moved that the charges against him be dismissed pursuant to General Statutes § 54-56b 5 and Practice Book 726.”
State v. Moody, 573 A.2d 716 (Conn. 1990).
· cites it 3× “” The court then ruled: “[T]he Court will enter a dismissal without prejudice to the State to reinstitute a prosecution as I think is provided for by the operative statute [§] 54-46a. So the charge of murder against [the defendant] is dismissed without prejudice to the State to…”
Smith v. Comm'r of Corr., 85 A.3d 1199 (Conn. App. Ct. 2014).
· cites it 4× “On December 5, 2001, after the [petitioner] had moved for a speedy trial, the state entered a nolle prosequi of the charges pursuant to the missing witness provision of General Statutes § 54-56b and Practice Book § 39-30.”
State v. Daly, 960 A.2d 1040 (Conn. App. Ct. 2008).
· cites it 3× “On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly denied his objection to the entry of the nolle because the state did not comply with General Statutes § 54-56b and Practice Book §§ 39-29 and 39-30.”
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.