Supreme Court of Connecticut
State of Connecticut v. Craig Kallberg
June 13, 2017326 Conn. 1
Summary
Justice Espinosa, dissenting, would have concluded that the September 22, 2011 disposition transcript unambiguously made the $271 charitable contribution consideration only for nollying the drug case. She would have treated the nolles in the other three cases, including the burglary case underlying the present charges, as unilateral and therefore subject to reinstitution. Justice Espinosa, dissenting, would have reversed the Appellate Court and upheld the defendant's conviction.