Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-57 (2026)

Joinder of offenses of the same character

✓ current as of May 2026

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

Whenever two or more cases are pending at the same time against the same party in the same court for offenses of the same character, counts for such offenses may be joined in one information unless the court orders otherwise.

(1949 Rev., S. 8770.)

Court may compel state to elect between counts; 75 C. 201; 81 C. 1; or direct jury to find separately on each count. 34 C. 299. Effect of general verdict. 34 C. 299; 70 C. 73. Where same offense is charged in different counts. 74 C. 525. Where one count only is good. 66 C. 255. Right of accused to call for separate verdicts. 83 C. 298. Relation of counts to each other. 96 C. 427. One count charging two accused as principals may properly be joined with a second count charging one as principal and the other as accessory. 98 C. 460. Refusal to compel state to elect between counts held proper. Id., 461. Cited. 126 C. 84. Whether there shall be separate trials on different counts joined in indictment or information lies within trial court's discretion. 134 C. 109. Whenever two or more cases are pending at the same time against the same party in the same court for offenses of the same character, counts for such offenses may be joined in one information. 169 C. 566. Whether joinder of indictments and informations is controlled by statute or Sec. 829 of the 1978 Practice Book discussed; since rule regulates court procedure and does not infringe on any substantive right, rule controlled and court did not abuse its discretion by ordering joinder of two informations not of the same character. 187 C. 292; judgment reversed, see 303 C. 538. Cited. 204 C. 714; 205 C. 61; 209 C. 458; 210 C. 78; 215 C. 538; 216 C. 647; 234 C. 324; 235 C. 748; 236 C. 112. Joinder of manslaughter count and risk of injury to minor count permissible when factors weighed. 243 C. 523. Defendant did not suffer substantial prejudice by consolidation of charges against him because the evidence in both cases would have been cross admissible at separate trials to show a common scheme or plan on the part of the defendant. 287 C. 608. Under section, there is no blanket presumption in favor of joinder; section is directed at prosecutors and governs whether they may join multiple charges in a single information, while Practice Book is directed at trial courts; trial court abused its discretion in finding defendant's alleged conduct in felony murder case not so brutal or shocking to require separate trials, but error was harmless. 303 C. 538.

Cited. 10 CA 503; Id., 624; Id., 709; 14 CA 526; Id., 710; 15 CA 161; 18 CA 406; Id., 482; 19 CA 48; 24 CA 502; 25 CA 181; Id., 503; 28 CA 645; 33 CA 133; 35 CA 781; 36 CA 805; 37 CA 437; 41 CA 584; 42 CA 382; 43 CA 527; Id., 680; 45 CA 207. Joinder permitted where defendant holding knife injured victim while attacking her because physical harm not brutal or shocking; consolidation of three informations for trial ameliorated by court's explicit instruction to jury that offenses should be considered separately. 59 CA 529. Trial court is authorized by statute and rule to order a joint trial of charges against the same defendant. 70 CA 462. Joinder was proper because evidence relating to each crime would have been admissible in each separate trial to prove a common plan or scheme. 87 CA 150. Defendant was not subject to substantial injustice or deprived of due process when trial court granted state's motion for joinder because the matters were not so complex as to confuse a jury. 112 CA 711. Court did not abuse its discretion by joining charges of violating a protective order and threatening in the second degree because evidence from incidents on the relevant date for which defendant was charged for both crimes was admissible in both cases. 132 CA 414.

Where defendants were put to plea on a single information charging similar offenses concerning different complainants, court did not abuse its discretion in making such joinder. 2 Conn. Cir. Ct. 514. Cited. Id., 585.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)

(Return to
List of Chapters)

(Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 89 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1963–2026 · leading case: State v. Payne, 34 A.3d 370 (Conn. 2012).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Payne, 34 A.3d 370 (Conn. 2012). · cites it 13× “In King , the defendant claimed that pursuant to General Statutes § 54-57, 4 only offenses of the “same character” may be joined for trial.”

State v. Gupta, 998 A.2d 1085 (Conn. 2010). · cites it 16× “We conclude that the evidence in M's case was not cross admissible in the other two cases under the rule allowing evidence of other misconduct in cases involving sex crimes, that the denial of severance resulted in substantial injustice and that any resulting prejudice was…”

State v. Davis, 942 A.2d 373 (Conn. 2008). · cites it 10× “" See also General Statutes § 54-57 ("[w]henever two or more cases are pending at the same time against the same party in the same court for offenses of the same character, counts for such offenses may be joined in one information unless the court orders otherwise").”

State v. Jennings, 583 A.2d 915 (Conn. 1990). · cites it 6× “The two informations were joined for trial pursuant to General Statutes § 54-57 and Practice Book § 829.”

State v. King, 445 A.2d 901 (Conn. 1982). · cites it 6× “Section 492 of the 1963 Practice Book and General Statutes § 54-57 provided: “Whenever two or more cases are pending at the same time against the same party in the same court for offenses of the same character, counts for such offenses may be joined in one information unless the…”

State v. Atkinson, 670 A.2d 276 (Conn. 1996). · cites it 5× “The defendant argues on appeal that the trial court incorrectly granted the state’s motion because “[t]he risk that the jury would improperly use the evidence of the escape to establish the murder, or that the defendant’s rights would be otherwise prejudiced, was great . . .…”

State v. Sanseverino, 949 A.2d 1156 (Conn. 2008). · cites it 4× “*628 General Statutes § 54-57 17 and Practice Book § 41-19 18 permit a trial court to join similar charges in pending cases against a common defendant.”

State v. Pollitt, 530 A.2d 155 (Conn. 1987). · cites it 4× “In granting the state’s motion for consolidation pursuant to Practice Book § 829 2 and General Statutes § 54-57, 3 the court found that, because there was “a substantial probability that certain evidence in each case may be admissible in the other on the issues of identification…”

State v. Boscarino, 529 A.2d 1260 (Conn. 1987). · cites it 3× “The defendant claims further that the complexity of the evidence and the manner of its presentation confused the jury, enhancing the probability that it would be unable to separate the evidence in each case. We agree with the defendant that, in these circumstances, the trial…”

State v. Johnson, 958 A.2d 713 (Conn. 2008). · cites it 4× ““General Statutes § 54-57 18 and Practice Book § 41-19 19 permit a trial court to join similar charges in pending cases against a common defendant.”

State v. Jones, 662 A.2d 1199 (Conn. 1995). · cites it 4× “Practice Book § 829; General Statutes § 54-57. A judicial authority may also order separate trials if it appears that a defendant is prejudiced by joinder.”

State v. Greene, 551 A.2d 1231 (Conn. 1988). · cites it 4× “The defendant argues that the joinder of these offenses prejudiced him in that the jurors were unable to keep the evidence of these offenses separate in their minds because the charges arose from factually similar but legally unrelated incidents.”

Show all 89 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.