Supreme Court of Connecticut
State v. Brundage
March 22, 2016
Summary
Justice McDonald, dissenting, would have held that the state could not file a substitute information charging entirely new offenses after an appellate remand directing a new trial on the remaining original charges. The dissent reasons that the specific remand order limited the trial court's authority and that permitting new charges would allow the state to reinvent its case after losing its chosen litigation strategy. The dissent also warns that such a result undermines the purposes of definite pleadings and encourages piecemeal litigation.