State v. Kalil

Summary

The court affirmed the defendant's convictions for third-degree burglary and second-degree larceny. It held that evidence of the defendant's uncharged conduct in Rhode Island was admissible to prove intent because it was relevant, supported by other circumstantial evidence, and not unduly prejudicial. It also held that the statutory amendment increasing the monetary threshold for second-degree larceny did not apply retroactively because Connecticut's savings statutes and the amendment's prospective language foreclosed retroactive application.