CGS § 54-56b. Right to dismissal or trial on nolle.

Cited. 180 C. 153. The court must accept the entry of nolle prosequi for the record unless it is persuaded that prosecutor's exercise of discretion is clearly contrary to manifest public interest. 185 C. 199. Cited. 191 C. 27; 198 C. 435. Entry of nolles over defendant's objection fits within exception to rule of finality allowing appeal of interlocutory trial court rulings that, if erroneous, cannot later be remedied. 209 C. 52. Gives defendant the right to have criminal charge disposed of with finality by dismissal with prejudice. Id., 133. Cited. 214 C. 616; 233 C. 44; 240 C. 590. Trial court properly allowed the entry of nolle prosequi based on the state's representations that a key witness against defendant was unavailable due to the witness' intent to assert his fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination, and the court was not required to conduct an evidentiary hearing re the state's representations; nolle prosequi functionally converted into a dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Sec. 54-142a(c) after 13 months had elapsed, therefore the state was not barred from bringing charges against defendant 4 years later and defendant's right to a speedy trial was not violated. 289 C. 598. Prosecutor representations that key witness suffered from a disability that prevented her from being able to testify fell within range of good faith disagreement re meaning of “disabled” under section and trial court properly deferred to prosecutor's exercise of discretion. 331 C. 658.

Cited. 5 CA 347; 10 CA 217; 11 CA 224; 40 CA 705; judgment reversed, see 240 C. 590; 44 CA 162. Defendant's objection to entry of nolle made 7 weeks after it had been entered was not timely and fell outside limited jurisdiction retained by the court following the entry of nolle. 111 CA 397. Defendant's infraction ticket was a complaint and, therefore, he was entitled to object to the entry of nolle and demand a trial or a dismissal. 143 CA 194. The phrase “has . . . become disabled” does not mean “unavailable” and was not intended to extend to instances in which the state lacks the ability to compel a witness to testify at trial; the term “disappeared” does not mean absent from the jurisdiction. 179 CA 676.