State v. Owen, 207 A.3d 17

Defendant Ricky Owen was charged with multiple offenses arising from an alleged domestic assault on his girlfriend J, including strangulation and second‑degree assault.
On the day trial was to begin, the prosecutor moved to enter a nolle prosequi after the material witness J informed the prosecutor she would not return from North Carolina to testify and reported depression, crying, fear of testifying, and a request for counseling.
The prosecutor represented that J had “become disabled” within the meaning of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-56b, invoking the statutory exception that allows a nolle over a defendant’s objection when a material witness has died, disappeared, or become disabled.
The defendant objected and moved to dismiss, arguing the witness’s fear (and presumed unwillingness) to testify did not constitute a disability and that the prosecutor abused her discretion by not subpoenaing the witness.
The trial court declined to weigh or receive evidence on the witness’s condition and instead reviewed whether the prosecutor abused her discretion in a manner clearly contrary to manifest public interest; it accepted the prosecutor’s representations and allowed the nolle.
The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the prosecutor’s representations went beyond mere fear (pointing to depression, emotional trauma, need for counseling), and that the court’s review under § 54-56b is deferential and limited to guarding against abuse of prosecutorial discretion.

Issue	State's Argument	Owen's Argument	Held
Whether prosecutor may enter a nolle over defendant's objection on basis that a material witness "became disabled" under § 54-56b	Prosecutor: J was disabled due to emotional trauma (depression, crying, need for counseling, fear) so the statutory exception applies	Owen: Witness’s fear/unwillingness is not a legal "disability"; prosecutor abused discretion and could have subpoenaed her	Court: Affirmed. Review is deferential; prosecutor’s representations were within good‑faith range and not clearly contrary to manifest public interest
Mootness and continuing liability after nolle plus lapse of time	State: Nolle plus 13 months leads to records erasure but felonies may remain prosecutable if statute of limitations not run	Owen: Appeal not moot as to felony counts because statutes of limitations still open; misdemeanor counts are moot	Court: Appeal not moot for felony charges (statute of limitations remains); misdemeanor counts are moot because limitations had run

State v. Lloyd, 185 Conn. 199 (interpretation of § 54-56b; courts must accept nolle unless prosecutor abused discretion)
Cislo v. Shelton, 240 Conn. 590 (nolle prosequi terminates prosecution but retrial may be possible; discussion of prosecutorial discretion)
State v. Smith, 289 Conn. 598 (entry of nolle plus passage of time can be functional equivalent of dismissal without prejudice)
United States v. Cowan, 524 F.2d 504 (5th Cir.) (rule 48(a) jurisprudence endorsing deferential judicial review to guard against abuse of prosecutorial dismissal)
United States v. Ammidown, 497 F.2d 615 (D.C. Cir.) (judiciary’s role under rule 48(a) is to guard against abuse of prosecutorial discretion)
State v. Richard P., 179 Conn. App. 676 (App. Ct.) (example where prosecutor’s representations were insufficient and trial court dismissed after finding abuse of discretion)
State v. Medrano, 308 Conn. 604 (prosecutor’s duties and elevated candor obligations as an officer of the court)