151 Conn.App. 120
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- On Jan. 13, 2009, Kenneth Rodriguez was stopped while driving; his Connecticut license was suspended indefinitely. He was charged by substitute information with violating § 14-215b (operating after expiration of suspension without reinstatement) and possession of a controlled substance (§ 21a-279(c)).
- At trial the state introduced DMV testimony that Rodriguez’s suspension was indefinite. Defense moved for judgment of acquittal on the § 14-215b count, arguing § 14-215b applies only after a suspension period has expired and does not apply to an indefinite suspension.
- The trial court granted acquittal on the § 14-215b count, concluding the statute did not apply to an indefinite suspension.
- The next day the state moved to amend the information to charge § 14-215a (operating during a period of suspension); the court granted the motion over defendant’s objection and the jury convicted on § 14-215a and the controlled-substance count.
- On appeal both parties agreed the amendment was improper because the state sought the amendment only after the defendant successfully pointed out a deficiency in the state’s case; the defendant asked for reversal of the § 14-215a conviction.
- The appellate court applied State v. Allen and reversed the conviction under § 14-215a, directing the trial court to render a judgment of not guilty on that charge; the controlled-substance conviction was not contested.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by permitting the state to amend the information after the defendant secured acquittal on the originally charged statute | Amendment was permissible (implicitly: to correct charging error and reflect proper offense) | Amendment was improper because the state sought to remedy a deficiency the defendant had pointed out by motion for acquittal; allowing amendment was unfair and an abuse of discretion | Reversed conviction under § 14-215a; amendment was improper where the state sought to cure its own failure after defendant’s successful motion for acquittal (Allen controlling) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Petitpas, 299 Conn. 99 (Conn. 2010) (standard for reviewing trial court’s decision to permit amendment is abuse of discretion)
- State v. Allen, 205 Conn. 370 (Conn. 1987) (when defendant identifies evidentiary gap by motion for judgment of acquittal, permitting state to reopen or amend to cure that gap is an abuse of discretion)
- State v. Watson, 165 Conn. 577 (Conn. 1973) (distinguished in Allen; defendant there had not moved for judgment of acquittal before reopening was allowed)