315 Conn. 861
Conn.2015Background
- Erasure statute §54-142d allows erasure when an offense is decriminalized after conviction.
- P.A. 11-71 (2011) reduced penalties for possession of less than 0.5 ounce of marijuana, creating a new framework (21a-279a) and classifying such conduct as minor civil violations.
- Menditto was convicted in 2009 for marijuana possession and later faced probation violations and a 2011 possession charge.
- After 11-71 took effect, Menditto sought erasure and moved to dismiss related charges; trial court denied; Appellate Court affirmed.
- Connecticut Supreme Court held that possession of less than 0.5 ounce was decriminalized for erasure purposes, reversing the Appellate Court in part.
- Court traced statutory changes since 1983, noting reclassification into four categories and the shift to civil penalties for minor violations; burden of proof context supported decriminalization.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether P.A. 11-71 decriminalized the possession for erasure §54-142d | Menditto: penalties reduction constitutes decriminalization. | State: decriminalization requires full legalization. | Yes, decriminalized for erasure purposes. |
Key Cases Cited
- McCoy v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 300 Conn. 144 (2011) (plain meaning rule governs statutory interpretation)
- Rainforest Cafe, Inc. v. Dept. of Revenue Services, 293 Conn. 363 (2009) (consider statutory context and related schemes in interpretation)
- State v. Dupigney, 295 Conn. 50 (2010) (statutory construction principles for criminal/offense distinctions)
- Lieberman v. Reliable Refuse Co., 212 Conn. 661 (1989) (familiar legal meaning from broad statutory context)
- Buell Industries, Inc. v. Greater New York Mutual Ins. Co., 259 Conn. 527 (2002) (interpretation guided by harmonious statutory scheme)