158 Conn.App. 418
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- May 28, 2008: Connecticut State Police executed a search warrant at defendant Jon Swebilius’s motel room and seized computer items; forensic analysis later identified images/videos appearing to depict child pornography.
- April 2, 2013: forensic report received indicating child pornography; May 9, 2013: arrest warrant for first‑degree possession of child pornography (five‑year statute of limitations) issued.
- Statute of limitations expired May 28, 2013; warrant was served June 10, 2013 after the defendant arranged to surrender to police — a 31‑day gap between issuance and service.
- Defendant turned himself in June 10, 2013, and moved to dismiss arguing the prosecution was time‑barred because the state failed to execute the warrant with due diligence.
- Trial court found defendant proved he was not elusive and shifted the burden to the state; the court concluded the 31‑day delay was not unreasonable and denied the motion to dismiss.
- Defendant pleaded nolo contendere conditionally to preserve appeal; sentence imposed and appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Swebilius) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 31‑day delay between issuance and service of an arrest warrant tolled the 5‑year statute of limitations | The state argued the delay was short and reasonable, and thus tolling under Crawford applies | Swebilius argued the post‑expiration delay was unreasonable and the prosecution was time‑barred because police made no meaningful effort to execute the warrant | Court held the 31‑day delay was not unreasonable; statute of limitations tolled and motion to dismiss denied |
| Allocation of burden when defendant shows he was not elusive | State must prove the delay was reasonable once defendant shows he was available | Defendant must show he was not elusive; he did so, shifting burden to state | Court applied burden shift: defendant found non‑elusive; state met its burden as to reasonableness of the 31‑day delay |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Crawford, 202 Conn. 443 (Conn. 1987) (establishes that an arrest warrant issued within the limitations period must be executed without unreasonable delay to toll the statute of limitations)
- State v. Woodtke, 130 Conn. App. 734 (Conn. App. 2011) (delay of years was unreasonable where state produced minimal efforts to locate defendant)
- State v. Soldi, 92 Conn. App. 849 (Conn. App. 2006) (multi‑year delay not tolled where state offered no evidence of due diligence)
- State v. Kruelski, 41 Conn. App. 476 (Conn. App. 1996) (short delay—one day—held not unreasonable as a matter of law)
- State v. Derks, 155 Conn. App. 87 (Conn. App. 2015) (very long delay tolled where defendant was elusive and relocated)