Page 34 - CLT020121

34 ¦ FEBRUARY 1, 2021 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS

SUPREME COURT ration doctrine, which presumes that amend-
ments to statutes that mitigate punishment
apply retroactively. The court affirmed. First,
the court declined defendant’s invitation to
CRIMINAL LAW examine relevant extratextual sources. In the

Supreme Court Declines to Rule That absence of explicit language regarding retro-
activity, the amended legislation had to be pre-
Statutory Amendments Mitigating sumed to apply only prospectively, i.e., only to
Punishment Should Be Applied cases brought after its effective date. The court
agreed with the state that a prospective appli-
Retroactively cation would not lead to an absurd or unwork-
able result when the amendment was viewed
CASE: State v. Bischoff in the context of the relevant savings statutes,
COURT: Connecticut Supreme Court General Statutes §§1-1 (t) and 54-194, which
DOC. NO.: SC 20302 serve to preserve all prior offenses and liabil-
COURT OPINION BY: D’Auria ity. The court noted that, since at least 1936,
DATE: January 15, 2021 • PAGES: 21 the court has held that changes to criminal
sentencing schemes, even those that provide a
The court affirmed a judgment, declining to benefit to defendants, are subject to the sav-
adopt the amelioration doctrine, which pre- ings statutes. That rule is supported by both
sumes that amendments to statutes that miti- plain language and history. The court noted
gate punishment should be applied retroac- that Spec. Sess. P.A. 15-2, §1 is silent regard-
tively. Defendant Haji Bischoff was arrested ing retroactivity. There was no ambiguity, and
on drug possession charges, in violation of there was no valid ground for examining ex-
General Statutes §21a-279. The alleged of- tratextual sources. Next, the court declined to
fenses occurred prior to enactment of Spec. overrule State v. Kalil, a case that thoroughly
Sess. P.A. 15-2, §1, which reduced the punish- considered and rejected the amelioration doc-
ment for the charged offenses. Defendant was trine, relying on more than 100 years of case
convicted and sentenced after the amendment authorities. Defendant argued that, prior to
took effect, and he was sentenced per terms of
the pre-amendment statute. Appeals followed, Kalil, the court routinely examined extratex-
and both the trial court and the state’s appel- tual sources. The court was unpersuaded, ob-
late court upheld the sentencing judgment. serving that General Statutes §1-2z,16 directs
On appeal to the supreme court, defendant the court not to examine extratextual sources
argued 1) that a prospective-only application unless the statute’s plain language is ambigu-
of the amendment would conflict with the ous or creates an absurd or unworkable result.
state’s budget bill, and 2) that the high court That statute is further evidence of the legisla-
should overrule State v. Kalil, 314 Conn. 529, ture’s intent that its statutes are to be taken at
107 A.3d 343 (2014), and adopt the amelio- face value.

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune