State v. Boswell, 142 Conn. App. 21

Boswell pled guilty by Alford to sexual assault in the second degree under § 53a-71 (a)(1) in 2004, with a sentence of 10 years imprisonment, suspended after 20 months, and 10 years of probation.
In 2007 the legislature amended § 53a-71 (a)(1), increasing the required age difference from two to three years and legalizing some consensual conduct within a three-year gap.
In 2011 Boswell petitioned under § 54-142d for erasure of the 2004 conviction records while probation-related charges were pending.
The trial court denied the petition for destruction of records, but granted termination of probation and indicated it would not decriminalize the offense.
The parties and trial court treated § 54-142d, saving statutes, and underlying conduct as central to the decision, and Boswell appealed claiming § 54-142d requires destruction of records for decriminalized offenses.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 54-142d requires erasure for offenses that have been decriminalized.	Boswell argues § 54-142d applies to decriminalized offenses.	Boswell’s position is not contested here; the State argues savings statutes and decriminalization do not trigger erasure.	Yes; the court held § 54-142d requires erasure for decriminalized offenses.
Whether savings statutes apply to this petition.	Boswell contends savings statutes do not apply to decriminalization cases.	The State argues savings statutes could bar erasure depending on context.	No; the court held savings statutes do not apply to the erasure petition in this decriminalization scenario.
Whether the court could rely on underlying conduct alleged in the arrest warrant when evaluating the petition.	Boswell’s conviction rested on § 53a-71 (a)(1) elements; underlying arrest-warrant conduct is not determinative.	The State contends the underlying conduct may bear on whether the offense was decriminalized.	The court held the petition must be evaluated based on the offense of conviction, not broader underlying conduct.

State v. Graham, 56 Conn. App. 507 (2000) (savings statutes apply to punishment and liability concerns when statutes change)
Plourde v. Liburdi, 207 Conn. 412 (1988) (words in different statutes can signal different intent; not controlling here for erasure)
Connelly v. Doe, 213 Conn. 66 (1989) (legislative intent must be expressed; past/present tense analysis not applicable here)
State v. Lutters, 270 Conn. 198 (2004) (statutory interpretation; plain meaning governs; extratextual evidence limited)
Felician Sisters of St. Francis of Connecticut, Inc. v. Historic District Commission, 284 Conn. 838 (2008) (statutory interpretation framework; plain meaning and relationship to other statutes)