State of Connecticut v. Craig Kallberg

Summary

The court held that the recorded nolle agreement was ambiguous about whether the defendant's contribution was consideration for nolles in all four cases or only in the drug case. Because the agreement was based solely on the hearing transcript, the court reviewed the issue de novo and construed the ambiguity against the state, concluding that the defendant reasonably understood the arrangement as a global disposition. The state's later prosecution of conduct covered by the burglary/larceny case breached that agreement, so the conviction was properly reversed and the charges had to be dismissed through specific performance. Justice Espinosa, dissenting, would have found the agreement unambiguous and would have upheld the conviction.