State v. A.B., 341 Conn. 47

Background

Dec. 22, 2009: police executed a search of A.B.’s Ansonia home; A.B. admitted in a sworn statement to possessing child pornography and provided passwords; detective told him an arrest warrant would follow after forensic review.
A.B. moved to Huntington Beach, California on Aug. 30, 2011; he maintained a single, easily traceable residence, phone number, tax records, and an active Facebook account while in California.
Forensic lab confirmed child pornography on April 15, 2013; an arrest warrant was issued May 22, 2013 (within the 5‑year statute of limitations) but not authorized extraditable; police made no effort to contact or serve A.B. despite knowing his whereabouts.
A.B. was arrested in California on or about Mar. 16, 2018 (nearly five years after the warrant issued) and returned voluntarily to Connecticut; he moved to dismiss, arguing the delay in executing the warrant was unreasonable under State v. Crawford.
Trial court granted the motion to dismiss (finding A.B. had shown availability and the state failed to show due diligence or a reasonable delay); the state appealed only the court’s legal conclusion that § 54‑193(c) tolling was inapplicable once a warrant has been issued.
Supreme Court affirmed: held § 54‑193(c) tolls only the time to commence a prosecution (not prosecutions already commenced by a timely-issued warrant), and the nearly five‑year delay here was unreasonable under Crawford principles.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (A.B.)	Held
Whether § 54‑193(c) tolls the limitations period even after a timely arrest warrant is issued	§ 54‑193(c) tolls limitations whenever a defendant flees the state, regardless of whether a warrant has been issued; thus tolling applied when A.B. left for CA	Once a warrant is issued within the statutory period, Crawford requires prompt execution; § 54‑193(c) applies only to toll the time to commence prosecution, not to prosecutions already commenced by warrant	Held: § 54‑193(c) tolls only the time to bring an indictment/information/complaint; it does not apply to prosecutions already commenced by a timely warrant — Crawford governs execution delay
Whether A.B. “fled” within the meaning of § 54‑193(c) so tolling would apply	A.B.’s relocation to CA in 2011 constituted fleeing under Ward and tolled the statute	A.B. cooperated with police, gave accurate contact information, and did not evade; his move did not make procurement of a warrant impracticable	Court did not rest decision on a finding of flight; it emphasized Ward addresses materially different facts (defendant who immediately fled to avoid detection) and declined to extend Ward to these facts
Whether the nearly five‑year delay in executing the warrant was reasonable	State conceded on appeal that the delay was unreasonable; in trial court it argued difficulty of apprehension could justify delay	A.B. showed availability (known address, phone, cooperation); state presented no evidence of due diligence	Held: delay was unreasonable under Crawford; prosecution time‑barred

Key Cases Cited

State v. Crawford, 202 Conn. 443, 521 A.2d 1034 (Conn. 1987) (issuance of warrant within limitation period satisfies statute only if executed without unreasonable delay)
State v. Ward, 306 Conn. 698, 52 A.3d 591 (Conn. 2012) (§ 54‑193(c) tolls limitations where defendant fled the state such that investigation/procurement of a warrant was impracticable)
State v. Swebilius, 325 Conn. 793, 159 A.3d 1099 (Conn. 2017) (delay in executing warrant cannot be deemed reasonable as a matter of law; state must show due diligence)
State v. Ali, 233 Conn. 403, 660 A.2d 337 (Conn. 1995) (Crawford framework applies; defendant’s departure is a factor but not dispositive)
Roger B. v. Commissioner of Correction, 190 Conn. App. 817, 212 A.3d 693 (Conn. App. 2019) (Appellate Court: when warrant issued within limitation period, tolling provision is irrelevant; the question is whether the warrant was executed without unreasonable delay)