State v. JIMENEZ-JARAMILL, 38 A.3d 239

Officer observed defendant driving with a hand-held cell phone on May 14, 2010; incident escalated to arrest and charge of creating a public disturbance under § 53a-181a.
The charge was tried to the court; Feliciano’s testimony was the state's case-in-chief and the defense presented witnesses with disputed observations.
After the officer’s testimony, the state rested with reserved right to rebuttal; defendant began presenting his witnesses on Feb 22, 2011.
During the defendant’s direct examination, the trial court sua sponte dismissed the charge, stating the case was not worth proceeding and that time was precious for a $75 infraction.
The state objected, arguing it had not been allowed cross-examination or rebuttal; the court adjourned with the dismissal in place.
The state appealed, arguing the dismissal violated Kinchen and the separation of powers and that proper procedures for acquittal or dismissal were not followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court could sua sponte dismiss a criminal charge during trial	State argues Kinchen prohibits sua sponte dismissal without §54-56 authority	Jimenez-Jaramill contends dismissal was proper under Kinchen? (defendant’s view)	Dismissal improper; court lacked authority to dismiss sua sponte
Whether the court deprived the state of cross-examination and rebuttal opportunities	State needed cross-examination and rebuttal before ruling	Defense contends procedures allowed; court interrupted	Procedural violation; cross-examination and rebuttal were curtailed
Whether the dismissal implicates double jeopardy or constitutes acquittal	State may retry if dismissal not an acquittal	Dismissal based on prosecutorial discretion, not acquittal	Not an acquittal; retrial not barred by double jeopardy; but improper basis for dismissal remains
Whether the court properly applied §54-56 and Kinchen standards	Kinchen requires statutory basis and factors weighing fairness	Court acted outside statutory framework and misapplied 54-56	§54-56 not satisfied; court acted beyond authority; dismissal flawed
Whether the proceedings should be remanded for proper adjudication	Remand for proper trial consistent with law	N/A	Remand for further proceedings according to law

State v. Kinchen, 243 Conn. 690 (Conn. 1998) (trial court cannot sua sponte dismiss absent statutory authority; separation of powers)
State v. Bruno, 293 Conn. 127 (Conn. 2009) (midtrial dismissal based on legal grounds unrelated to guilt not an acquittal; retrial permissible)
Smith v. Massachusetts, 543 U.S. 462 (Supreme Court 2005) (judgment of acquittal is a substantive determination; requires proper basis)
United States v. Scott, 437 U.S. 82 (U.S. 1978) (midtrial termination not an acquittal if not based on sufficiency of evidence; government appeal allowed)
State v. Kruelski, 250 Conn. 1 (Conn. 1999) (double jeopardy not barred where midtrial ruling based on legal grounds unrelated to guilt)
State v. Bruno, 293 Conn. 127 (Conn. 2009) (reiterates non-acquittal nature of midtrial dismissal; retrial allowed)