148 Conn. App. 550
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- Defendant Richard Brundage was convicted of sexual assault and risk of injury to a child; this court in State v. Brundage (Brundage I) reversed and remanded for a new trial as to charges not time barred under the pre-2002 statute of limitations. Count one of the Wolcott information was dismissed as wholly time barred.
- The remand directive ordered dismissal of the time-barred count and a new trial on the remaining charges; the appellate opinion noted the state could amend informations if appropriate but did not decide limits on amendments.
- On remand the state filed a substitute information adding two counts of kidnapping in the first degree; Brundage objected, arguing the new charges exceeded the scope of the remand and were res judicata.
- The trial court sustained the objection, concluding the appellate remand contemplated only amendments to cure statute-of-limitations timing for the original charges, not new offenses requiring fresh discovery and proceedings.
- The state appealed under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-96; the Appellate Court reversed, holding the remand did not bar pretrial amendments and that the kidnapping charges were supported by the arrest warrants and not time barred or precluded by res judicata.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Brundage) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the remand from Brundage I precluded the state from filing a substitute information adding kidnapping charges | Remand did not address or decide limits on amendments; state may amend pretrial and charge non-time-barred offenses | Remand limited prosecution to the original, non-time-barred sexual-assault-related charges; adding kidnapping exceeds scope | Court held remand did not preclude amendment; substitute information reinstated |
| Whether substitute information charging kidnapping had sufficient factual basis | Warrant allegations supplied facts to support kidnapping elements (abduction, restraint, intent to sexually abuse/inflict injury/advance felony) | Argued new charges were improper on remand and would restart prosecution | Court held the arrest warrants provided a sufficient factual basis to charge kidnapping |
| Whether kidnapping counts were time barred | Kidnapping counts in substitute information were not time barred under the applicable statute | Defendant contended procedural posture and remand barred new charges | Court held kidnapping charges were not time barred |
| Whether res judicata barred kidnapping charges | State argued res judicata inapplicable; offenses differ, kidnapping not litigated, and remand put parties where they would have been if trial court had ruled correctly | Defendant argued prosecution of kidnapping would relitigate or circumvent prior appeal protections | Court held res judicata did not bar the charges given different elements, policy considerations, and lack of prior adjudication |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Brundage, 138 Conn. App. 22 (Conn. App. 2012) (appellate reversal and remand limiting prosecution of time-barred offenses)
- State v. Tabone, 301 Conn. 708 (Conn. 2011) (trial court on remand must follow appellate mandate and opinion)
- Burrell v. United States, 467 F.3d 160 (2d Cir. 2006) (trial court may address issues not decided on appeal; must follow appellate rulings on decided issues)
- State v. Kinchen, 243 Conn. 690 (Conn. 1998) (prosecutorial discretion and separation of powers principles govern charging decisions)
- State v. Ellis, 197 Conn. 436 (Conn. 1985) (res judicata policy and limits, with flexibility in criminal context)
- State v. Mullien, 140 Conn. App. 299 (Conn. App. 2013) (state has broad authority to amend an information before trial)