State v. Cote, 314 Conn. 570

On January 27, 2009, Stonington homeowner Judith Stanton discovered a forced entry and numerous items (jewelry, cash, pocket watches) missing from her house.
Witnesses saw a dark Massachusetts-plated Saab near the property; later that day Richmond, RI police observed the same Saab at a residence on Kingston Road with two men nearby.
Officer Raymond Driscoll stopped the Saab, identified the driver as Joseph Cote and passenger as Albert Kalil, and seized tools (screwdriver, pry bar, hatchet/hammer), gloves, and a small costume gemstone; police later recovered a bag of jewelry matching Stanton’s property.
Cote and Kalil were tried jointly; Cote was convicted of third degree burglary and second degree larceny and sentenced to concurrent terms (effective six years).
Cote appealed claiming (1) that a 2009 statutory amendment increasing the larceny second-degree dollar threshold (P.A. 09-138, § 2) applied retroactively (which would reduce his offense), and (2) that admission of Driscoll’s testimony about the Rhode Island events was unduly prejudicial.
The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Court: it declined to consider a curative-act argument outside the certified question, held the amelioration (retroactivity) claim lacked merit, and upheld admission of the other-misconduct evidence as more probative than prejudicial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Cote)	Held
Whether P.A. 09-138 § 2 (raising larceny-2 threshold) applies retroactively	Statute does not apply retroactively; Appellate Court decision correct	P.A. 09-138 is ameliorative (or alternatively curative) and should be applied to reduce Cote’s offense/sentence	Court: Did not apply retroactively; amelioration/retroactivity claim rejected; curative argument not considered on certiorari scope grounds
Whether trial court erred admitting Driscoll’s testimony about separate RI conduct	Testimony was admissible to "complete the story" and to prove intent; probative value outweighed prejudice	Testimony was evidence of uncharged misconduct and highly prejudicial; should have been excluded	Court: Admission was proper; limiting instructions and relevance to intent/context made evidence admissible; prejudice did not outweigh probative value

State v. Cote, 136 Conn. App. 427 (Conn. App. 2012) (Appellate Court opinion describing facts, convictions, and issues)
State v. Kalil, 136 Conn. App. 454 (Conn. App. 2012) (companion appeal addressing admissibility of other-misconduct evidence)
Castonguay v. Commissioner of Correction, 300 Conn. 649 (Conn. 2011) (discussing retroactive application of ameliorative criminal statutes)
Grimm v. Grimm, 276 Conn. 377 (Conn. 2005) (procedural rule that new claims may not be raised first in a reply brief)
In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (Cal. 1965) (formulation of the amelioration doctrine applying reduced penalties retroactively)