State v. Apt, 146 Conn. App. 641

Defendant Seth William Apt was tried and convicted of third-degree larceny; at sentencing the court also found him guilty of committing an offense while released on bond and imposed a two‑year sentence enhancement pursuant to § 53a‑40b.
Prior to sentencing, records of several earlier arrests (Manchester larceny charges, criminal trespass, and reckless endangerment charges) had been erased under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54‑142a (one set after successful accelerated rehabilitation; others after nolles and the 13‑month period).
At the June 24, 2011 sentencing hearing the court admitted erased informations and an appearance bond form over the defendant’s objection and used them to find the defendant had been released on bond when he committed the Hebron larceny.
The erased records were the only evidence supporting the judge’s separate finding that a crime was committed while released on bond; the judge explicitly added two years for that enhancement.
On appeal the defendant argued the court erred by admitting erased records and that, because erasure treats the person as never arrested for the erased matters, any sentence enhancement based on release on bond for those erased charges is barred.

Issue	State's Argument	Apt's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court could admit erased police/court records at sentencing	Erasure statute does not bar all uses; records might be used while the case is pending or alternative evidence could prove release on bond	Erased records are statutorily protected from disclosure and cannot be admitted	Admission of erased records was impermissible; court erred in admitting them
Whether sentence enhancement under § 53a‑40b may be imposed when the records establishing pretrial release have been erased	If error found, remand for new hearing where the State could present non‑erased, non‑derivative evidence of release on bond	Erasure treats the person as never arrested; enhancing a sentence on that basis contradicts erasure and its protective purpose	Enhancement barred where relied on erased records; remand unnecessary because any enhancement would violate erasure statute; enhancement vacated
Whether alternative proof at a new hearing could sustain enhancement	State: erasure does not preclude testimony from personal knowledge not derived from erased records	Apt: his legal status (never arrested for erased matters) cannot be relitigated; erasure precludes treating him as released on bond for those charges	Even admissible non‑derivative evidence cannot overcome the statutory effect of erasure; no new hearing—vacate enhancement

State v. Morowitz, 200 Conn. 440 (erasure statute protects persons from consequences of dismissed charges and bars subsequent use of records)
State v. Anonymous, 237 Conn. 501 (erasure requires nondisclosure of erased records in subsequent proceedings)
Rado v. Board of Education, 216 Conn. 541 (erasure does not obliterate memory and testimony not derived from erased records may be admissible)
Stratford v. Council 15, Local 407, AFSCME, 3 Conn. App. 590 (administrative body properly refused to admit erased records into evidence)
State v. Fernando A., 294 Conn. 1 (statutory construction principle: harmonize statutes and give effect to legislative intent)