State v. Woodtke
2011 WL 3568925
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- The defendant was charged with criminal damage to a landlord's property in the second degree (a Class A misdemeanor) under § 53a-117f(d).
- An arrest warrant was issued September 15, 2006, after police were notified of the vandalism on August 8, 2006.
- The warrant was not served on the defendant until July 16, 2009, about 2 years and 10 months after issuance.
- The defendant moved to dismiss on October 29, 2009, arguing the delay violated § 54-193 and due process protections.
- A 2010 evidentiary hearing addressed the reasonableness of the delay and whether the state failed to toll the limitations period.
- The trial court denied the motion to dismiss; the defendant plead nolo contendere conditioned on appellate review of that ruling; the state argued the delay was reasonable and tolled the statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the delay in serving the warrant tolls the statute of limitations | Woodtke asserts delay was unreasonable and not tolled | State contends delay tolled § 54-193(b) after timely issuance | Yes, delay was unreasonable; statute not tolled and dismissal required |
| What standard governs tolling when an arrest warrant is issued but not promptly executed | State must show reasonable delay after issuance | Burden-shifting requires defendant to show non-elusiveness; then state bears burden | Burden shifts to state to show reasonable delay; here delay was unreasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Crawford, 202 Conn. 443 (1987) (tolling requires reasonable execution after issuance; no per se period)
- State v. Soldi, 92 Conn.App. 849 (2006) (burden shifts to state to prove reasonable delay after defendant shows non-elusiveness)
- State v. Kruelski, 41 Conn. App. 476 (1996) (two key events: issuance and service of warrant; due process only for prejudicial delay)
- State v. Echols, 170 Conn. 11 (1975) (preexisting rule: delay must be weighed against protection of statute of limitations; prejudice not required for tolling)
- State v. Jennings, 101 Conn.App. 810 (2007) (arrest within period tolls if executed without unreasonable delay)
- Gonzalez v. Commissioner of Correction, 122 Conn.App. 271 (2010) (relocation outside state can affect reasonableness of delay)
- Coleman v. State, 655 So.2d 1239 (1995) (Florida case cited for unreasonable delay where efforts to locate were minimal)