Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 54 — CRIMINAL PROCEDURE · Chapter 961 — Trial and Proceedings after Conviction
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-96 (2026)

Appeals by the state from Superior Court in criminal cases

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Appeals from the rulings and decisions of the Superior Court, upon all questions of law arising on the trial of criminal cases, may be taken by the state, with the permission of the presiding judge, to the Supreme Court or to the Appellate Court, in the same manner and to the same effect as if made by the accused.

(1949 Rev., S. 8812; 1963, P.A. 642, S. 74; P.A. 80-442, S. 23, 28; June Sp. Sess. P.A. 83-29, S. 52, 82.)

History: 1963 act deleted provisions re appeals from common pleas court; P.A. 80-442 allowed appeals to be taken to appellate session of superior court, effective July 1, 1981; June Sp. Sess. P.A. 83-29 deleted reference to appellate session of the superior court and added reference to appellate court.

Right of appeal not limited to errors during trial alone, but extends to errors in earlier part of proceedings. 58 C. 100. Section authorizes an appeal in the nature of a motion for a new trial after acquittal; bail. 65 C. 278; 106 C. 115. Proper method to pursue to secure rulings on evidence for appeal; asking prejudicial questions before jury to secure rulings on evidence held error. 100 C. 215. Proper method to be pursued by state in taking an appeal in a criminal case discussed. 106 C. 115. To review judgment of city court, state may bring writ of error. 118 C. 373. Statute held constitutional. 122 C. 542; 302 U.S. 319. Cited. 150 C. 246; 163 C. 230; 164 C. 637. Rulings and decisions appealable under section include any proceeding from which either criminal defendant or party to civil trial could appeal. 170 C. 337. State has right to appeal in criminal cases only from Superior Court on questions of law with permission of presiding judge. 171 C. 417. Cited. Id., 600; 174 C. 100; 176 C. 224. Double jeopardy does not attach as long as a retrial is not required in the event the state prevails in its appeal. 178 C. 450. Cited. 181 C. 284; 187 C. 109; 188 C. 183; Id., 626. State's motion for dismissal with prejudice in order to allow appeal from suppression order discussed. 189 C. 42. Cited. Id., 228; Id., 360; Id., 717; 191 C. 506; 192 C. 471; 194 C. 594; 197 C. 436. Jurisdictional predicate for appeal exists only if trial court abused discretion in denying motion for permission to appeal. 202 C. 300. Cited. 209 C. 23; 210 C. 110; 213 C. 66; Id., 708; 214 C. 657; Id., 692; 215 C. 189; 219 C. 752; 223 C. 411; 224 C. 656, see also 31 CA 452; 225 C. 355; 226 C. 514; 229 C. 178; 230 C. 427; Id., 608; 236 C. 659. Judgment of Appellate Court in 33 CA 550 reversed on appeal of state with respect to suppression of evidence pursuant to section. 238 C. 380. Cited. Id., 828; 240 C. 317; Id., 708; 241 C. 823. Trial court abuses its discretion in denying state permission to appeal under section if state demonstrates that the issues are debatable among jurists of reason, that a court could resolve the issues in a different manner, or that the questions are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. 261 C. 395. In denying state permission to appeal, trial court misconstrued the law of unanimity in context of a capital felony penalty hearing and, by doing so, improperly concluded that jury reached a lawful verdict. 271 C. 338.

Cited. 1 CA 378; 2 CA 605; 3 CA 477; 4 CA 520; 7 CA 131; 10 CA 147; Id., 532; 15 CA 289; 17 CA 385; 18 CA 658; 19 CA 631; Id., 686; 20 CA 321. Appeal period runs from date permission to appeal is granted. 23 CA 559. Cited. 25 CA 235; 26 CA 667; 27 CA 427; 29 CA 512; 32 CA 1; 34 CA 1; 36 CA 803; judgment reversed, see 235 C. 659, see also 241 C. 823; 39 CA 550; judgment reversed with respect to suppression of evidence, see 238 C. 380; 40 CA 544; Id., 789; 42 CA 1; Id., 17; Id., 186; judgment reversed, see 241 C. 823; 43 CA 698; 45 CA 722; 46 CA 350. Probation revocation hearing is a criminal case that can be appealed under section. 50 CA 187. Trial court improperly denied state permission to appeal on the bases of inadequacy of record where state rectified record, lack of jurisdiction over defendant solely for prosecutor's failure to sign the information pursuant to Sec. 36-12, and state's failure to indicate its intention to appeal on date of dismissal of charges where state impliedly expressed its intent by seeking “one week” and planned to file motion to appeal within that period. 51 CA 676. In the absence of either permission to appeal or challenge to trial court's denial of permission to appeal, Appellate Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear an appeal pursuant to section. 55 CA 250. Where there was sufficient basis in the evidence to support court's finding on a motion to suppress and there had been a full evidentiary hearing on such motion, the record was such that there was no clear, arbitrary and extreme abuse of discretion such that an injustice appears to have been done and, therefore, trial court's denial of state's request for permission to appeal was not an abuse of discretion. 64 CA 495. Despite the statutory language of section permitting the state to appeal “with the permission of the court”, the state may directly appeal a question of law without the permission of the court after requesting permission to appeal if the request is expressly denied. 147 CA 465.

Cited. 38 CS 521.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 131 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1963–2025 · leading case: State v. James, 802 A.2d 820 (Conn. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. James, 802 A.2d 820 (Conn. 2002). · cites it 24× “2d 956 (1991), into the abuse of discretion standard for review of denials of state requests for permission to appeal pursuant to General Statutes § 54-96; 1 and (2) dismissed the state’s appeal.”
State v. Peeler, 857 A.2d 808 (Conn. 2004). · cites it 11× “Section 54-96, however, does not preclude an appeal by the state when the denial was so arbitrary as to constitute an extreme abuse of discretion rendering the denial ineffective.”
State v. Bergin, 574 A.2d 164 (Conn. 1990). · cites it 16× “As a general proposition General Statutes § 54-96 authorizes the state to appeal questions of law in a criminal case only if the trial court grants permission to appeal.”
Simms v. Warden, 640 A.2d 601 (Conn. 1994). · cites it 8× “2d 413 (1992); we relied on case law under General Statutes § 54-96, which authorizes a trial court to permit the state to appeal questions of law in criminal cases.”
Simms v. Warden, State Prison, 646 A.2d 126 (Conn. 1994). · cites it 6× “187 -89, we assumed that § 52-470 (b) imposed jurisdictional constraints upon an appellate tribunal because we have so held in cases interpreting General Statutes § 54-96, which authorizes the state, with the permission of the trial court, to appeal questions of law in criminal…”
State v. S & R Sanitation Servs., Inc., 521 A.2d 1017 (Conn. 1987). · cites it 16× “” It therefore decided that the other requirements for the application of collateral estoppel were met and it granted the motion to dismiss.”
State v. Avcollie, 384 A.2d 315 (Conn. 1977). · cites it 9× “Whether, by virtue of the trial court’s July 22 “denial” of permission to appeal, this court has subject-matter jurisdiction under General Statutes § 54-96. The defendant claims that, since the jury’s verdict of guilty was never formally “accepted” by the court, a valid guilty…”
State v. Audet, 365 A.2d 1082 (Conn. 1976). · cites it 9× “” The state then asked for permission under (General Statutes § 54-96 to appeal the ruling on the defendant’s motion to dismiss the four counts on which the jury had been unable to reach agreement.”
State v. Ross, 454 A.2d 266 (Conn. 1983). · cites it 6× “, granted the motion of the state and ordered that each case be dismissed with prejudice.”
State v. Turner, 838 A.2d 947 (Conn. 2004). · cites it 4× “In a similar fashion, we held that the Lozada criteria was appropriate in evaluating an abuse of discretion in which the state sought permission to appeal under General Statutes § 54-96. State v. James, supra, 261 Conn.”
State v. Russo, 790 A.2d 1132 (Conn. 2002). · cites it 4× “See General Statutes § 54-96. 14 This appeal followed.”
State v. Joyner, 774 A.2d 927 (Conn. 2001). · cites it 4× “where, as a result of the suppression of evidence before trial, a judgment of dismissal with prejudice fully dispositive of the case has been rendered, the state may, with the permission of the trial court as provided in General Statutes § 54-96, 15 obtain appellate review of…”
Show all 131 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.