2006 Ct. Sup. 15710
Nos. CR05-229868, CR05-229902, CR05-229942Connecticut Superior Court Judicial District of New Haven at Meriden
August 25, 2006
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION TO SUSPEND PROSECUTION
KENNETH L. SHLUGER, JUDGE.
The defendant has made an application pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes § 17a-693 et seq., for an examination to determine drug dependency and for an order to suspend prosecution to pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes § 17a-695 et seq.
On or about March 11, 2005, the defendant had been arrested for possession of narcotics with intent to sell. He was treated as a youthful offender and his case was ultimately disposed of on January 13, 2006. During the pendency of that case, after the arrest but prior to the sentencing, he was arrested on August 5, 2005 when he was then sixteen. The charges included his procuring, preparing and injecting a dose of heroin into the arm of his then seventeen-year-old girlfriend, Alyssa Courtright. He was formally charged with distribution of narcotics pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes § 21a-277(a), an unclassified felony, possession of paraphernalia pursuant to 21a-267(a), and illegal delivery of alcohol to a minor pursuant to 30-86. On August 10, 2005, the accused was arrested for possession of narcotics with intent to sell pursuant to 21a-279(a). It should be noted that all of these felonies took place while he was adjudicated as a youthful offender and awaiting sentencing.
Connecticut General Statutes § 17a-696 permits the court to order the suspension of prosecution and order treatment for alcohol or drug dependency if the court finds that:
1.) The accused person was an alcohol/dependent or drug dependent person at the time of the crime;
2.) The person presently needs and is likely to benefit from treatment for the dependency; and
3.) Suspension of prosecution will advance the CT Page 15711 interest of justice.
The defendant presented Mark Simonello who is employed with the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services, having worked for some eighteen years in his field, Mr. Simonello prepared a report which was admitted as a full exhibit (Defendant’s Exhibit B) attesting to the fact that at the time of the offenses, the defendant was indeed alcohol and drug dependent. Mr. Simonello concluded that at the time of the evaluation, September 29, 2005, he was of the opinion that the defendant was in the need of intensive long-term residential treatment for his dependency and in fact recommended a residential treatment program at Help, Inc. in Waterbury, Connecticut for a duration of between nine and twelve months.
The defendant offered the testimony of Beth Therieault, a Drug and Alcohol Counselor at Help, Inc. Ms. Therieault testified that she was the primary counselor for the defendant who has received inpatient care at Help, Inc., commencing January 13, 2006 through and including July 31, 2006. She testified that in fact, the defendant’s “graduation” was scheduled for August 1, 2006 and that he had successfully completed the inpatient program of approximately six and a half months. She testified that the program consisted of group meetings, individual counseling meetings, recreation, therapy and education. She testified that at the present time, the defendant was not in need of inpatient treatment for his dependency but rather, would require counseling of one hour per week and attendance in a group session with similarly situated individuals one time per week.
The defendant offered the defendant’s father who testified as to the change in his son from before his treatment to the present time which was all to the positive. He also testified on cross-examination that his son denied injecting the narcotics into the arm of Alyssa Courtright.
Finally, the defendant offered Ms. Paula McCarthy-Krombel, MSW, who was his school’s social worker who testified as to his drug issues in 9th and 10th grade.
The state called no witnesses.
The State of Connecticut has argued in its brief that Connecticut General Statutes § 17a-693 et seq. is an unconstitutional infringement of the separation of powers. CT Page 15712
The court does not address that issue as this motion can be determined on a non-constitutional basis. The court in Kinsey v. Pacific Employer’s Insurance, 277 Conn. 398 (2006) reminds us that “we repeatedly have declined to consider constitutional issues when alternative, non-constitutional grounds exist . . . Our restraint in such matters does not stem from blind adherence to principles of judicial deference to the legislative and executive branches of government but, rather, from our recognition that members of all three branches, in carrying out their duties, have a common obligation and solemn responsibility to support the United States constitution and the constitution of the state of Connecticut.” Id. At 422.
FINDINGS OF FACT:
The court makes the following findings of fact:
1. That at the time of the offenses, August 2005, the defendant was alcohol and/or drug dependent;
2. That at the time of the evaluation, September 29, 2005, the defendant was in need of and would benefit from treatment for his dependency;
3. The defendant was receiving long-term inpatient residential substance abuse treatment at Help, Inc. from January 13, 2006 through August 1, 2006, as a result of his sentence for his youthful offender case;
4. The defendant successfully completed the inpatient program and graduated on or about August 1, 2006;
5. The defendant is no longer in need of inpatient treatment for his dependency but rather, is in need of aftercare relapse prevention which would include approximately 2 hours per week; and
6. Suspension of prosecution will not advance the interest of justice. The offenses which the defendant allegedly committed are egregious and troubling, taking place while he was awaiting sentencing. A seventeen-year-old girl was nearly killed by the acts of this defendant. The interest of justice would not be well served from a suspension of this prosecution. CT Page 15713 For the foregoing reasons stated above, the motion to suspend prosecution is denied. CT Page 15714