State v. Brundage, 320 Conn. 740

Richard Brundage was convicted (2009) of multiple counts of sexual assault and risk of injury for abuse spanning 1995–2003; convictions were vacated on appeal in State v. Brundage (Brundage I).
The Appellate Court in Brundage I held one count wholly time-barred and the remaining three counts only partially timely; it reversed and remanded for a new trial as to charges not time-barred.
On remand the state filed a November 26, 2012 substitute information charging two counts of first-degree kidnapping (different offenses than the original informations).
The trial court dismissed the 2012 substitute information, concluding the Appellate Court’s remand limited retrial to the original informations (amended to cure statute-of-limitations defects).
The Appellate Court reversed (Brundage II), holding the remand did not bar filing a substitute information and that res judicata did not preclude the kidnapping charges; the Supreme Court granted certification and affirmed the Appellate Court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Brundage)	Held
Whether the Appellate Court’s remand in Brundage I barred the state from filing a substitute information charging different offenses on remand	Remand did not decide the substitution issue; trial court may address matters not decided on appeal; remand confined only to time-barred question	Remand should be read narrowly to permit retrial only on the same informations (amended) that were before the Appellate Court	The remand did not preclude filing a substitute information; trial court abused discretion in dismissing it
Whether the kidnapping charges were barred by the doctrine of res judicata (claim preclusion)	Res judicata inapplicable because the only final judgment (Appellate Court’s reversal/remand) expressly authorized further proceedings	Argued res judicata barred prosecution on offenses that could have been prosecuted earlier	Res judicata inapplicable because the Appellate Court’s judgment was not a final bar but ordered a new trial; claim preclusion cannot override a remand

State v. Brundage, 138 Conn. App. 22 (Conn. App. 2012) (Appellate Court reversed convictions and remanded for dismissal of wholly time‑barred count and new trial as to remaining charges)
State v. Brundage, 148 Conn. App. 550 (Conn. App. 2014) (Appellate Court held trial court erred in dismissing substitute information and rejected res judicata bar)
State v. Tabone, 301 Conn. 708 (Conn. 2011) (scope of a remand is a question of law; trial court must follow appellate mandate)
Rizzo Pool Co. v. Del Grosso, 240 Conn. 58 (Conn. 1997) (mandate must be followed but remands should not be read so narrowly as to prevent consideration of matters relevant to ordered proceedings)
Beccia v. Waterbury, 192 Conn. 127 (Conn. 1984) (trial court on remand may consider issues not decided on appeal; appellate opinion does not silently decide omitted issues)
State v. Ellis, 197 Conn. 436 (Conn. 1985) (discussion of res judicata and distinctions in applying civil preclusion doctrines to criminal prosecutions)