State of Connecticut v. Richard Anderson; State of Connecticut v. Janice Anderson

Summary

The court affirmed the denial of the defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declaring a mistrial over their objection after the prosecuting attorney became seriously ill. The circumstances established manifest necessity because the prosecutor’s return date was indefinite, the complex case could not reasonably be assumed by another prosecutor within a reasonable time, and a lengthy continuance risked impairing the jury’s impartiality. The court also held that the trial court was not required to poll the jurors about future availability because the inquiry would have been futile. Justice Katz, dissenting, would have found the record inadequate to establish that a continuance with substitute counsel was infeasible.