State v. Butler, 348 Conn. 51

Defendant Carlton Butler was arrested in 2017 on charges including risk of injury to a child and admitted to a two‑year supervised diversionary program under § 54‑56l that promised dismissal upon successful completion.
Program conditions included no contact with minors and avoidance of places frequented by minors; Butler agreed to those conditions.
A Court Support Services Division final progress report initially flagged non‑satisfactory completion based on an attached probation officer letter alleging volunteer work and job applications involving YMCAs and a missed appointment; those allegations were unverified at the October 2, 2019 hearing.
Defense counsel and Butler’s father contested the YMCA allegations; the trial court found the unverified claims unreliable and granted dismissal under § 54‑56l on October 2, 2019.
The state filed a motion to open the judgment the next day, presenting additional probation reports and allegedly new evidence (camp footage) and arguing the dismissal rested on false representations; the trial court granted the motion to open.
The Appellate Court reversed, and the Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed: a trial court loses jurisdiction after an unconditional dismissal of all charges and therefore lacked authority to open the judgment; the court declined to decide whether the civil fraud‑based rule to open judgments applies in criminal cases because the record did not show intentional misrepresentation.

Issue	State's Argument	Butler's Argument	Held
Whether a criminal trial court has inherent common‑law authority to modify/open a judgment of dismissal within four months of its entry (i.e., apply the § 52‑212a "four‑month rule" to criminal cases).	Trial court retains authority to open its dismissal within that period; civil four‑month rule should extend to criminal judgments.	Once an information is dismissed unconditionally, the court is divested of jurisdiction and cannot reopen the case; applying the four‑month civil rule to criminal dismissals is improper.	Court held the four‑month civil rule does not apply to criminal cases; an unconditional dismissal extinguishes the court’s jurisdiction and it lacked authority to open the judgment.
Whether a trial court may open a criminal dismissal when the dismissal was allegedly procured by material misrepresentation or fraud on the court.	Court may reopen a judgment obtained by material misrepresentation to prevent fraud and correct an erroneous dismissal.	Even if fraud rule applied, the record here does not establish intentional or material misrepresentation; court lacked jurisdiction regardless.	Court declined to decide the broader applicability of the civil fraud‑based exception because the record did not support a finding of intentional fraud or material misrepresentation.

State v. McCoy, 331 Conn. 561 (Conn. 2019) (recognized limits on trial court jurisdiction in criminal cases and constrained Wilson).
State v. Wilson, 199 Conn. 417 (Conn. 1986) (held four‑month rule applied to criminal judgments; overruled in part by later decisions).
State v. Myers, 242 Conn. 125 (Conn. 1997) (relied on Wilson concerning postjudgment jurisdiction; discussed in lineage of cases).
Billington v. Billington, 220 Conn. 212 (Conn. 1991) (civil rule recognizing power to open a judgment obtained by fraud).
Chapman Lumber, Inc. v. Tager, 288 Conn. 69 (Conn. 2008) (standard for opening civil judgments on fraud requires diligence and clear proof).
Reed v. Reincke, 155 Conn. 591 (Conn. 1967) (information is essential to initiate criminal proceedings; foundational for jurisdiction analysis).
State v. Richardson, 291 Conn. 426 (Conn. 2009) (explains that a nolle prosequi/dismissal generally terminates prosecution and divests court of jurisdiction).