State v. Derks, 155 Conn.App. 87

Victim (age 12) reported sexual assault by defendant on Sept 21, 1997; police obtained an arrest warrant on Feb 3, 1998.
Defendant moved from Connecticut to Colorado in late 1997 and lived at multiple Colorado addresses; he obtained employment, registered as a sex offender in Colorado, and was arrested there on unrelated charges.
Connecticut authorities did not serve the Connecticut arrest warrant until Oct 19, 2010 (extradition served Oct 3, 2010) — about 12 years, 8 months after issuance.
Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing the prosecution was time‑barred under Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 54‑193a and 54‑193(b) because the warrant was not executed within a reasonable time, and alternatively that delay violated due process.
Trial court (Fasano, J.) held defendant eluded authorities, tolled the statute of limitations, and found no actual prejudice from delay; defendant entered a conditional nolo contendere plea and appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Derks)	Held
Whether issuance of warrant tolled the statute of limitations when execution was delayed	Warrant tolled limitations because defendant evaded service by relocating and living under multiple Colorado addresses; police efforts were adequate	Warrant did not toll because it was not executed within a reasonable time (≈12+ years); defendant was discoverable in Colorado and did not meaningfully evade	Court held tolling proper: facts show defendant eluded authorities, so delay attributable to him and statute tolled
Whether prosecutorial delay violated due process	Delay did not cause actual prejudice and was largely occasioned by defendant’s conduct; police diligence was sufficient	Delay was unreasonable and prejudicial to defendant’s rights (lack of timely execution, defendant allegedly discoverable)	Court held no due process violation: defendant did not show actual prejudice; delay not unreasonable given evasive conduct

State v. Crawford, 202 Conn. 443 (establishes that an arrest warrant issued and delivered for service can toll the statute of limitations if executed without unreasonable delay; reasonableness depends on circumstances)
State v. Pittman, 123 Conn. App. 774 (explains prejudice is the focal point of due process delay claims; delay alone insufficient except in extreme cases)
State v. Woodtke, 130 Conn. App. 734 (articulates burden shift: once defendant presents evidence he was not elusive, state must prove delay was reasonable; also assesses police diligence)
Centrix Management Co., LLC v. Valencia, 132 Conn. App. 582 (states review framework for mixed questions of law and fact when appellate courts assess whether factual findings support legal conclusions)