State v. Swebilius, 325 Conn. 793

Summary

The Connecticut Supreme Court held that an arrest warrant issued within the applicable criminal statute of limitations must be executed without unreasonable delay to toll the limitations period. Once a defendant demonstrates availability and nonelusiveness during the statutory period, the state must explain why the delay in executing the warrant was reasonable; the case was remanded for that determination.

Holdings

1. A delay in executing an arrest warrant cannot be deemed reasonable as a matter of law solely because it is brief. Reasonableness must be determined case by case based on the circumstances, including the defendant's conduct and the state's diligence.
2. Once a defendant demonstrates that he or she was available and nonelusive during the statutory period, the defendant has satisfied the required burden concerning the statute-of-limitations defense, and the burden shifts to the state to demonstrate that the delay in executing the warrant was not unreasonable.
3. The lower courts applied an incorrect legal standard by relying solely on the length of the delay. The state must be given an opportunity to present evidence that it made reasonable efforts to execute the warrant before expiration or that its failure to do so was reasonable under the circumstances.

Questions Presented

1. Whether issuance of an arrest warrant within the statutory limitations period tolls the statute when the warrant is executed after the limitations period expires.
2. Whether a thirty-two-day delay in executing an arrest warrant may be deemed reasonable as a matter of law solely because of its brevity.
3. Whether, after a defendant demonstrates availability and nonelusiveness during the limitations period, the burden shifts to the state to demonstrate that the delay in executing the warrant was not unreasonable.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded