216 Conn.App. 126
Conn. App. Ct.2022Background:
- Randolph pleaded guilty in July 2013 to charges arising from an August 24, 2012 armed robbery and was sentenced October 17, 2013.
- In October 2016 he filed a petition for a new trial alleging newly discovered letters from an "Iris S." that exculpated him and claiming prosecutors had possession of and concealed those letters.
- Respondents (the prosecutor Mambrino and the State) raised a special defense that the petition was time-barred by the three‑year limitations period for petitions for a new trial (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52‑582).
- Randolph argued the § 52‑582 period was tolled by the statutory fraudulent‑concealment tolling provision, § 52‑595, and also asserted a Brady claim.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for respondents, concluding § 52‑582 is jurisdictional and not subject to tolling; the Appellate Court reversed that legal conclusion but affirmed on the alternative ground that Randolph failed to present sufficient evidence of fraudulent concealment (letters unauthenticated, author unidentified, no proof respondents received or concealed them, and inadequate briefing).
Issues:
| Issue | Randolph's Argument | Respondents' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 52‑595's fraudulent‑concealment tolling applies to the 3‑year § 52‑582 limit for petitions for a new trial | § 52‑595 is a broad legislative tolling provision and applies to § 52‑582, so the limitations period can be tolled | § 52‑582 is jurisdictional and therefore not subject to tolling; Turner and Fichera support treating the period as non‑tolled | Court held § 52‑595 applies to § 52‑582; statutory tolling for fraudulent concealment can delay accrual beyond three years when elements are met |
| Whether Randolph presented evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue on fraudulent concealment at summary judgment | The "Iris S." letters create a triable issue that respondents knew of and concealed exculpatory evidence | Letters are unauthenticated, unsigned/undated, author unidentified, no proof respondents received or concealed them; briefing inadequate | Court held Randolph failed to raise a genuine factual dispute; summary judgment for respondents affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Turner v. State, 172 Conn. App. 352 (Conn. App. 2017) (addressed § 52‑582 as jurisdictional and declined to decide applicability of § 52‑595)
- Fichera v. Mine Hill Corp., 207 Conn. 204 (Conn. 1988) (refused tolling under § 52‑595 on the facts of a CUTPA claim where the alleged deceptive act was the substantive violation)
- Connell v. Colwell, 214 Conn. 242 (Conn. 1990) (held § 52‑595 is a clear general exception to statutes of limitations that do not specifically preclude its application)
- Bailey v. Glover, 88 U.S. 342 (U.S. 1874) (seminal explanation of the equitable rationale for fraudulent‑concealment tolling)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (prosecutorial duty to disclose exculpatory evidence)
- Asherman v. State, 202 Conn. 429 (Conn. 1987) (standards for granting a petition for new trial on newly discovered evidence)
- Medical Device Solutions, LLC v. Aferzon, 207 Conn. App. 707 (Conn. App. 2021) (articulates elements and heightened proof standard for fraudulent concealment under § 52‑595)