326 Conn. 1
Conn.2017Background
- In September 2011, four pending cases against Kallberg were discussed at a disposition hearing.
- Original plan: Kallberg would plead guilty to drug paraphernalia in the drug case in exchange for nolles in three other cases.
- Due to the judge’s absence, a new disposition was negotiated; a $271 charitable contribution was introduced as consideration.
- Transcript shows nolles entered for driving, breach of the peace, and burglary cases with stated reasons; the drug case was said to be nolled in exchange for the contribution.
- The majority treats all four nolles as part of a single bargain; the dissent contends only the drug case was exchanged for the contribution, others for independent reasons.
- The dissent argues the state could reinstate charges in the present case arising from the burglary, if circumstances changed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the disposition transcript unambiguously showing only the drug case exchanged for the contribution? | Kallberg | Kallberg | Transcript shows unilateral nolles for other cases; only drug case tied to contribution. |
| Does the unilateral nolle for drug case bar reinstitution of other cases in the present case? | Kallberg | Kallberg | State could reinstitute charges in present case for the other matters. |
| Are the four nolles part of a single global disposition or separate reasons for each case? | Kallberg | Kallberg | Disposition shows distinct reasons for each nolle; only drug case tied to contribution. |
| Did the prosecutor's remarks or the lack of explicit record undermine the parties' intent? | Kallberg | Kallberg | Record shows explicit reasons for each nolle; not ambiguous about unilateral vs exchange-based nolles. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Pieger, 240 Conn. 639 (1997) (authority on charitable contributions and nolle implications)
- Mason v. State, 302 Md. 434 (1985) (nolle as part of plea agreement equates to dismissal)
- State v. Lloyd, 185 Conn. 199 (1981) (entry of nolle terminates prosecution; new prosecution requires new action)
- State v. Nelson, Conn. App. 215 (1990) (destruction of evidence analysis in nolle context)