*********************************************** 

The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was 

released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions 

and petitions for certification is the “officially released” 

date appearing in the opinion. 

All opinions are subject to modification and technical 

correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut 

Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of 

discrepancies between the advance release version of an 

opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut 

Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports 

or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to 

be considered authoritative. 

The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the 

opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and 

bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the 

Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not 

be reproduced and distributed without the express written 

permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. 

*********************************************** 
STATE v. BUTLER—CONCURRENCE

D’AURIA, J., concurring in part and concurring in the

judgment. In this certified appeal, the majority once

again holds that the legislature has stripped the courts

of this state of their inherent common-law authority to

open, correct, or modify a judgment, today, a judgment

of dismissal following a defendant’s completion of a

diversionary program. I disagree that our courts have

been legislatively dispossessed of this inherent authority, but, because I agree that the trial court should have

denied the state’s motion to open in this particular case,

I concur in the judgment.

We have long recognized that, at common law, courts

of general jurisdiction in this state had inherent power

to open, correct, or modify judgments. See, e.g., Wolfork

v. Yale Medical Group, 335 Conn. 448, 469, 239 A.3d

272 (2020); Chapman Lumber, Inc. v. Tager, 288 Conn.

69, 106, 952 A.2d 1 (2008). This principle is deeply rooted

in our common law and reflects the beneficent policy

that courts should be able to admit and correct mistakes, whether their own mistakes or those of the parties, to do justice. See State v. Luzietti, 230 Conn. 427,

440, 646 A.2d 85 (1994) (Katz, J., dissenting) (‘‘we

should recognize the trial court’s inherent power to

correct errors of substance within a reasonable time

in order to do justice’’). Historically, this included the

authority to grant a motion for a new trial, which is a

‘‘[common-law] power [that] the courts . . . have the

right to exercise in such a manner as shall best promote

justice.’’ Zaleski v. Clark, 45 Conn. 397, 404 (1877).

It has never been questioned—and neither the parties

nor the majority in the present case questions—whether

the general common-law rule that courts have inherent

authority to open, correct, or modify judgments applied

equally to all courts of general jurisdiction, which, in Connecticut, include criminal courts. See State v. Ramos,

306 Conn. 125, 133–34, 49 A.3d 197 (2012) (‘‘The Superior Court is a constitutional court of general jurisdiction. In the absence of statutory or constitutional provisions, the limits of its jurisdiction are delineated by

the common law.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.)).

For purposes of my discussion here, I will assume the

same. The majority assumes, too—or does not challenge—that this common-law authority, as late as 1978,

extended to the authority of courts to open, correct,

or modify judgments dismissing criminal charges.

Because the policy favoring the finality of judgments

competes with the beneficent policy permitting courts

to rectify their mistakes, litigation has usually centered

on how long and under what circumstances courts

should be able to exercise their inherent power to open,

correct, or modify their judgments. See, e.g., People v.

Karaman, 4 Cal. 4th 335, 348, 842 P.2d 100, 14 Cal.
Rptr. 2d 801 (1992) (recognizing that common-law rule

‘‘that the trial court may change its judgment only during

the term in which the judgment was rendered, but not

thereafter . . . was established in order to provide litigants with some finality to legal proceedings’’ (citations

omitted; footnote omitted)). The present case is only

the most recent example of this court’s often tortured

attempts to accommodate these competing public policies, which sometimes results in manufactured rules;

see State v. Wilson, 199 Conn. 417, 437, 513 A.2d 620

(1986) (borrowing civil rule of practice providing for

four months to open judgments); exceptions to exceptions to those rules; see State v. Myers, 242 Conn. 125,

131, 136, 698 A.2d 823 (1997) (court had jurisdiction to

rule on motion for new trial based on juror bias five

months after defendant had been sentenced); and, most

recently, in the present case and in State v. McCoy, 331

Conn. 561, 586–87, 206 A.3d 725 (2019), in the overruling

of the exceptions to the exceptions (i.e., Wilson and

Myers) in an attempt to clean up our case law and make

the lines brighter.

McCoy involved the question of whether there was, or

ought to be, an exception to the common-law, temporal

limitation on the court’s inherent authority to correct

its mistakes—that is, that the trial court loses jurisdiction over the case when the convicted defendant is

committed to the custody of the Commissioner of Correction and begins serving his sentence—that would

permit the trial court to rule on a timely filed motion

before the court had sentenced the defendant. Id., 574–

75. The majority in McCoy answered this question in the

negative: i.e., our law could not abide such an exception

and, to the extent that we had permitted such an exception in the past, threw shade on our precedent. See id.,

588–89; see also id., 583 (expressing ‘‘serious concerns’’

about Myers’ ‘‘rationale and the implications . . . were

we to follow it without question’’). As I explained in

my concurrence and dissent in State v. McCoy, supra,

331 Conn. 600 (D’Auria, J., Palmer and McDonald, Js.,

concurring in part and dissenting in part), I believe the

majority’s holding in that case created an illogical result

and was avoidable if we had acted like the commonlaw court we are and found exceptions to a rule—or

relied on existing exceptions—when good sense calls

for it. As in McCoy, the rule at issue in the present case

is ‘‘a common-law rule borne out of experience and

sensibility’’; O. Holmes, The Common Law (P. Pereira &

D. Beltran eds., 2011) p. 5; and ‘‘this court has the

inherent power to define its contours to ensure that

its application does not lead to unsensible and unjust

results . . . .’’ State v. McCoy, supra, 614 (D’Auria, J.,

concurring in part and dissenting in part). I will not

repeat the entirety of that analysis here.

In the present case, I believe that the majority repeats

the error of McCoy and earlier cases by assuming—

indeed, holding—that the legislature in 1977 abrogated
the authority of our courts to open, correct, or modify

judgments and that it did so by eliminating the word

‘‘sessions’’ from General Statutes (Rev. to 1977) § 51-

181. See Public Acts 1977, No. 77-576, § 27 (P.A. 77-576).

I agree with the majority that the common-law rule, as

measured by sessions of the court, is now obsolete.

But, in my view, the notion that this legislative change

abrogated our trial courts’ inherent authority to open,

correct, or modify judgments is not an inescapable conclusion. Rather, I would conclude that courts of this

state still have this authority, even though fashioning

a rule in the context of this case—the unappealed judgment dismissing a criminal case—might present challenges that cannot be overcome.

It is necessary first to review some of the history of

General Statutes § 51-181 and, in doing so, to bear in

mind our general rule of construction that, when a statute seeks to limit a court’s common-law jurisdiction,

we strictly construe that statute so as to limit any incursion on our authority only to the extent expressly and

explicitly stated by the legislature. See, e.g., Sastrom

v. Psychiatric Security Review Board, 291 Conn. 307,

324–25, 968 A.2d 396 (2009) (explaining that legislature

knows how to expressly limit scope of court’s jurisdiction, and, if no intent to limit is expressed, then statute

does not divest court of jurisdiction). This rule of construction is consistent with the even more general rule

that the court’s common-law general jurisdiction is

broad and that ‘‘there is a strong presumption in favor

of jurisdiction’’; State v. Ramos, supra, 306 Conn. 134;

and is a concrete application of the well established

maxim that we must strictly construe statutes in derogation of the common law. See, e.g., Fennelly v. Norton,

294 Conn. 484, 505, 985 A.2d 1026 (2010). We must also

keep in mind that the Superior Court is a court of

general jurisdiction, and, therefore, ‘‘[i]n the absence of

statutory or constitutional provisions, the limits of its

jurisdiction are delineated by the common law.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Ramos, supra,

133–34.1

As the majority correctly notes, at common law,

courts had the inherent power to open, correct, or modify their own judgments. This authority was limited in

duration, however. Nearly 150 years ago, we described

that limitation as follows: ‘‘During the continuance of

a term of court the judge holding it has, in a sense,

absolute control over judgments rendered; that is, he

can declare and subsequently modify or annul them.’’

Sturdevant v. Stanton, 47 Conn. 579, 580 (1880). Over

100 years later, and since then, we have indicated that,

at common law, ‘‘a trial court possesses the inherent

power to modify its own judgments during the term at

which they were rendered.’’ State v. Wilson, supra, 199

Conn. 436; see also Snow v. Calise, 174 Conn. 567,

571–72, 392 A.2d 440 (1978).2 At common law, even

when the term had not yet ended, a trial court did not
have jurisdiction to modify its judgment after a person

had begun to serve his or her sentence. See State v.

Henkel, 23 Conn. Supp. 135, 138, 177 A.2d 684 (Conn.

Cir. 1961) (‘‘[w]hile the established rule is that [a] sentence in a criminal case may be modified at any time

during the term of court at which it was imposed, such

modification cannot be made after an act has been done

in execution of it’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)).

There are, however, common-law exceptions to this

general rule, one being that trial courts retain jurisdiction after sentencing to correct an illegal sentence. See,

e.g., State v. Parker, 295 Conn. 825, 835–36, 992 A.2d

1103 (2010). There is also a common-law exception

recognizing that trial courts have ‘‘inherent’’ power,

‘‘independent of [any] statutory provisions,’’ to open a civil

judgment ‘‘obtained by fraud’’ ‘‘in the actual absence

of consent, or because of mutual mistake’’ at any time.

Kenworthy v. Kenworthy, 180 Conn. 129, 131, 429 A.2d

837 (1980).3

Prior to 1965, § 51-181 provided that there ‘‘shall be

such sessions of the superior court . . . held annually

. . . at such times and such places and for such duration of time as is fixed and determined by the chief

judge of the superior court . . . .’’ General Statutes

(Cum. Supp. 1963) § 51-181. Therefore, the duration of

time in which courts had the jurisdiction to open, correct, or modify their judgments was limited by the chief

judge’s decision regarding how long the sessions were

to be held. In 1965, the legislature amended § 51-181 to

specify that the court ‘‘shall be deemed continuously

in session with four quarterly sessions . . . held on the

second Tuesday of September, December, March and

June annually . . . at such times and places and for

such duration of time as is fixed . . . by the chief judge

of the superior court . . . .’’ Public Acts, Spec. Sess.,

February, 1965, No. 331, § 21, codified at General Statutes (Cum. Supp. 1965) § 51-181. This further limited

the duration in which courts could open their judgments

because, although the chief judge still retained authority

to set the duration of the sessions, each session had to

begin on a particular day and end by the next specified

start date.

In 1977, the statute was modified to remove any reference to sessions, providing that ‘‘[t]he superior court

shall sit continuously throughout the year, at such times

and places and for such duration of time as is fixed

and determined by the chief court administrator . . . .’’

P.A. 77-576, § 27 (effective July 1, 1978). This statutory

change was accomplished alongside numerous other

statutory changes—including the reorganization of judicial districts and the increase of salaries of judges. See

generally P.A. 77-576. This modification to § 51-181 was

one section of a sixty-five section bill the purpose of

which was to ensure an efficient transition to the reorganized, one tier court system that the legislature established the previous year; see Public Acts 1976, No. 76-
436; which merged the Court of Common Pleas and the

Juvenile Court with the Superior Court. When testifying

in favor of the bill before the Judiciary Committee, a

representative from the Office of the Executive Secretary of the State Judicial Department4 noted that, since

the merger of the courts in 1976, there was confusion

regarding the use of the words ‘‘term’’ and ‘‘session.’’

See Conn. Joint Standing Committee Hearings, Judiciary, Pt. 4, 1977 Sess., p. 1360, remarks of Harriett

Rosen. This bill clarified that confusion in part by keeping language that was already present in the statute—

that the court was ‘‘continuously’’ in session—but

removing the reference to ‘‘sessions.’’ P.A. 77-576, § 27.

Thus, the legislature removed the time frame for when

a trial court could exercise its inherent authority to

open, correct, or modify judgments. There is nothing

in the alterations to the statutes governing the court

system, however, that explicitly divests the courts of

their inherent authority to open, correct, or modify judgments.

Concurrently with this change, in § 28 of P.A. 77-576,

which was codified at General Statutes (Rev. to 1979)

§ 52-212a, the legislature established what is now referred

to as the ‘‘four month’’ rule. General Statutes (Rev. to

2019) § 52-212a provided that, ‘‘in such cases in which

the court has continuing jurisdiction, a civil judgment

or decree rendered in the Superior Court may not be

opened or set aside unless a motion to open or set aside

is filed within four months following the date on which

it was rendered or passed.’’ In other words, having

explicitly removed the time frame for when the court

may exercise its inherent authority to open, correct, or

modify judgments, the legislature filled in the gap by

creating the four month rule, explicitly divesting the

court of its common-law authority to open, correct, or

modify judgments in civil cases. See General Statutes

(Rev. to 2019) § 52-212 (a). No similar statute was enacted

for criminal judgments. However, just because the legislature provided a specific rule for civil judgments does

not necessarily mean it intended to eviscerate a court’s

jurisdiction in criminal cases to open, correct, or modify. This begs the question: assuming that jurisdiction

previously existed, what happened to the court’s inherent common-law authority to open, correct, or modify

a judgment in the criminal context?

The majority infers from the legislature’s removal of

the reference to court ‘‘sessions’’ in § 51-181, a small

part of a bill intended to implement an omnibus court

reorganization bill, that, at the same time the legislature

explicitly removed the timing of the court’s sittings,

it implicitly also took away the courts’ common-law

authority to open, correct, or modify criminal judgments. That is to say, the legislature not only removed

the time frame during which the courts could exercise

their inherent authority but also divested the courts of

that authority entirely.
The majority reasons that ‘‘it is not appropriately

within our purview to infer jurisdiction when no statutory provision exists to grant it.’’ This is unquestionably

true when we had no common-law jurisdiction in the

area. But we have also said that ‘‘[t]he Superior Court

is a constitutional court of general jurisdiction. In the

absence of statutory or constitutional provisions, the

limits of its jurisdiction are delineated by the common

law.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Ramos,

supra, 306 Conn. 133–34.

It is well established that, at common law, a trial court

had the discretionary power to open, correct, or modify

its judgment. Id., 134. This court has identified two

common-law, temporal limitations on this power. The

first is not at issue: that a court loses jurisdiction after

a defendant’s sentence has been executed. See, e.g.,

State v. Pallotti, 119 Conn. 70, 74, 174 A. 74 (1934). The

second was that the court’s jurisdiction to open, correct,

or modify a judgment is limited to the term or session

in which the judgment was rendered. See Sturdevant

v. Stanton, supra, 47 Conn. 580. Now that the Superior

Court—by legislative action—no longer sits in terms or

sessions, a court term or session cannot constitute the

measure of the temporal limit of the courts’ jurisdiction.

But I do not agree that it is ineluctable that this means

the courts now lack this authority entirely. Indeed, nothing in the amendments passed in 1977 explicitly

divested or limited the courts’ authority to open, correct, or modify criminal judgments.

As this court must strictly construe statutes that seek

to limit the courts’ common-law authority, looking to

the explicit language removed from § 51-181 by the 1977

amendment, why is it not as reasonable a conclusion

that the legislature intended toextend the courts’ authority

to open, correct, or modify judgments by removing any

temporal limitation? I disagree with the majority that

the statutory changes altering the Superior Court’s

structure fully divested our courts of their commonlaw authority to open, correct, or modify criminal judgments. In my view, this reasoning too easily cedes inherent judicial authority to the legislature in a context in

which I find no evidence that the legislature has sought

to annex this authority for its own. In my view, upon

the modest change in the statute, the judiciary retains

its common-law authority to develop and adapt the

common law in light of the fact that courts no longer

sit in sessions. See State v. Lombardo Bros. Mason

Contractors, Inc., 307 Conn. 412, 436, 54 A.3d 1005

(2012) (acknowledging that this court has ‘‘authority to

adapt the common law to the changing needs of society,’’ although not in sovereign immunity cases); see

also Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Call Publishing

Co., 181 U.S. 92, 102, 21 S. Ct. 561, 45 L. Ed. 765 (1901)

(‘‘the common law comprises the body of those principles and rules of action . . . which derive their author-
ity . . . from the judgments and decrees of the courts’’

(internal quotation marks omitted)); State v. McCoy,

supra, 331 Conn. 608 (D’Auria, J., concurring in part

and dissenting in part) (‘‘[a]ccordingly, because the rule

at issue is a common-law rule, this court has the authority to clarify, develop, and adapt the rule’’).

II

That begs the question of what is the proper rule

to apply to the opening or modification of criminal

judgments under our common law. I note initially that

it is unclear if the court’s pre-1977 common-law authority to open, correct, or modify a judgment before the

end of the session applied to the dismissal of criminal

cases at all. As I will discuss, there are sound reasons

why the authority to open, correct, or modify a judgment should not extend to judgments of dismissal. If

this authority did not exist before 1977, then the courts

do not have this authority now, and this court may not

extend its jurisdiction beyond the bounds that existed

at common law. See State v. Ramos, supra, 306 Conn.

133–34 (‘‘[i]n the absence of statutory or constitutional

provisions, the limits of its jurisdiction are delineated by

the common law’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)).

I am unaware of, and the parties have not cited, any

case law regarding whether the common-law rule governing the opening and modification of judgments extended

to criminal judgments. This might be the answer.

Absent conclusive evidence that this common-law

rule did not apply to criminal judgments of dismissal,

I will assume that it did. In making this assumption, I

am mindful of the fact that our state courts are commonlaw courts; see State v. Luzietti, supra, 230 Conn. 431

(‘‘The Superior Court is a constitutional court of general

jurisdiction. . . . In the absence of statutory or constitutional provisions, the limits of its jurisdiction are

delineated by the common law.’’ (Citation omitted; footnote omitted.)); and this court is the ultimate arbiter

of the scope of our courts’ common-law jurisdiction.

See, e.g., Stuart v. Stuart, 297 Conn. 26, 45, 996 A.2d

259 (2010) (‘‘it is manifest to our hierarchical judicial

system that this court has the final say on matters of

Connecticut law’’). Thus, once the legislature amended

§ 51-181 to eliminate the word ‘‘sessions,’’ it was for

this court to then decide the impact of this change on

the common-law authority to open, correct, or modify

criminal judgments.

Common-law judging often involves the search for a

sensible rule that accommodates the interests implicated, and, in this case, any new common-law rule would

have to be limited in a way that does not enhance our

common-law jurisdiction. The rule the majority announces

today as a matter of first impression—that, by legislative

action in 1977, courts lost their inherent authority to

open, correct, or modify criminal judgments of dismissal immediately—is actually an exception to the
general rule that I have already referred to twice: that

courts have inherent authority to do so. But as I explained,

because the legislature has not explicitly abrogated the

courts’ common-law authority to open, correct, or modify criminal judgments, I disagree with the exception

the majority adopts. Rather, assuming that the commonlaw rule historically applied to criminal judgments, a

review of our relevant case law regarding jurisdiction

in criminal cases provides guidance for the rule that I

suggest this court could consider adopting in light of

the legislature’s elimination of the word ‘‘sessions’’ in

§ 51-181: that courts retain jurisdiction to open, correct,

or modify a criminal judgment during the twenty day

appeal period if the state places the defendant on notice

at the time of judgment that it may seek to appeal.

As the majority correctly notes, the dismissal of criminal charges is a complete and final resolution of all

pending charges, and, under the reasoning in McCoy, a

trial court would lose jurisdiction following that action,

similar to an acquittal. The state does have the statutory

right to seek permission to appeal from any dismissal

of charges pursuant to General Statutes § 54-96. This

court has held that, ‘‘[u]nder § 54-96 . . . permission

to appeal [is] jurisdictional because, at common law,

the state had no right to appeal in criminal cases.’’

Simms v. Warden, 230 Conn. 608, 614, 646 A.2d 126

(1994). One important limit to the state’s ability to

appeal is that, ‘‘to protect the rights of both the [s]tate

and the accused and to have an orderly procedure, it

was essential that the practice under the statute of 1886

[the original statute giving the state the right to appeal

in a criminal case] should require the [s]tate’s [a]ttorney

or prosecutor to secure from the presiding judge permission to appeal at the time the judgment of acquittal

[or dismissal] was rendered.’’ (Emphasis added.) State

v. Carabetta, 106 Conn. 114, 117, 137 A. 394 (1927).

In recognizing this restriction, this court in Carabetta

acknowledged that ‘‘[t]he instances [in which a prosecutor] will not know at the time of the judgment whether

or not he should appeal will be few. The consequences

to [the] [s]tate and [to the] accused compel this practice,

and the incidental occasional inconvenience to the prosecutor must be accepted for the larger public interests

involved—the just interests of the accused and of the

[s]tate and of the orderly procedure which alone can

make this statute effective and serviceable. . . . It is

not necessary that the prosecutor shall at the moment

of judgment reach a final determination that he will

prosecute the appeal. It is necessary that he determine

at the time of the judgment that he ought to ask the

court for permission to take such appeal, so that the

accused shall not be forthwith discharged . . . .’’ (Citations omitted.) Id., 118–19.

This rule has been affirmed multiple times, including

in State v. Ross, 189 Conn. 42, 46–47, 454 A.2d 266 (1983).

The defendant in Ross claimed that the state’s appeal
should be dismissed because of the five day delay by

the state in filing its written request for permission to

appeal. Id., 46. On appeal, this court noted that ‘‘[t]he

evil perceived in granting a tardy request of the state

to appeal was the injustice of dragging back into court

a defendant who had reasonably assumed that his discharge meant that he was a free man no longer charged

with a crime. State v. Carabetta, supra, [106 Conn.]

117. No such expectation could reasonably have been

entertained by [the] defendants, however, because the

state did express its intention to appeal at the time

of judgment and the court refused to discharge the

defendants when such a request was made during the

proceeding. . . . The defendants were fully aware that

the state intended to appeal.’’ (Citation omitted.) State

v. Ross, supra, 46. This has also become the expected

course of action when the state intends to appeal from

a dismissal of charges. See, e.g., State v. Tucker, 219

Conn. 752, 755–56, 595 A.2d 832 (1991); State v. Rios,

110 Conn. App. 442, 448 n.6, 954 A.2d 901 (2008); State

v. Tyler, 6 Conn. App. 505, 507, 506 A.2d 562 (1986).

Because of the requirement, this court has explained

that the trial court loses jurisdiction absent notice at

the time of judgment that the state intends to appeal.

See State v. Avcollie, 174 Conn. 100, 109, 384 A.2d 315

(1977) (holding that court retained in personam jurisdiction over defendant because state expressed intent

to seek permission to appeal). When the state does

provide this notice, however, the court maintains continuing jurisdiction over the case. Id. In my view, it

would be a reasonable rule for this court to adopt—in

the absence of court ‘‘sessions’’ to measure the courts’

continuing jurisdiction to open, correct, or modify—

that, once the state provides notice of its intent to appeal

from a dismissal, the trial court retains jurisdiction to

decide any motion, including a motion to open, filed

within the twenty day appeal period. There is logic to

this rule in that it ‘‘imposes reasonable demands on the

trial attorneys to discover and disclose problems they

perceive with the judgment.’’ State v. Luzietti, supra,

230 Conn. 440 (Katz, J., dissenting). It also provides

the defendant with adequate notice that he may not

ultimately remain a free man. See State v. Middleton,

20 Conn. App. 321, 326–27, 566 A.2d 1363 (1989) (court

held that, although state did not explicitly express intention to appeal, because state took formal exception to

court’s ruling, defendant was on notice of possibility

of appeal).

Nevertheless, even if the majority were to adopt this

rule, I would have to conclude that the majority reaches

the right conclusion in this particular case. Although

the state could not have announced its intent to appeal

at the time the charges against the defendant were

dismissed, as it could not have known the information

it would receive the next day, the prevailing notion that

a defendant is entitled to notice that his charges may
be reinstated governs here as well. See State v. Tucker,

supra, 219 Conn. 755. The state did not announce its

intent to appeal from the dismissal of the criminal case

or otherwise do anything to put the defendant on notice

that the charges against him could be reinstated after

the dismissal. Thus, at the time of judgment—the dismissal of the charges—because the state stated no

intention to challenge the judgment, the trial court lost

its jurisdiction. As a result, the trial court should have

denied the state’s motion to open because the defendant

in this case would not have been on notice that the

charges against him could have been reinstated. This

result, however, does not necessitate the holding that

the trial court does not have the inherent authority to

open, correct, or modify its judgments in criminal cases

because of an action taken by the legislature.

Finally, this court could decide that, without trial

courts sitting in ‘‘sessions’’ any longer, there is no longer

any sensible rule we can fashion that would appropriately cabin the trial courts’ authority to open, correct,

or modify criminal judgments of dismissal. We could

conclude that the rule should be that courts no longer

have any such authority. This would be a decision by

this court, however, and would be a very different thing

than concluding that the legislature removed from § 51-

181 in the 1977 amendment a portion of the inherent

common-law authority of our trial courts by eliminating

any reference to ‘‘sessions.’’

Accordingly, I respectfully concur in part.

1 The majority confuses this maxim and insists that ‘‘it is not appropriately

within our purview to infer jurisdiction when no statutory provision exists

to grant it.’’

2 The majority correctly observes that this court has interpreted the word

‘‘term’’ to refer to ‘‘sessions’’ of the court, ‘‘as it was defined in early enactments of § 51-181.’’ The word ‘‘term,’’ as used in the common-law rule that

a judgment may not be opened after the term during which it was rendered,

has been interpreted to mean ‘‘sessions’’ of court, as defined in § 51-181,

and not the statutory annual term provided for in General Statutes § 51-179.

Cichy v. Kostyk, 143 Conn. 688, 695–96, 125 A.2d 483 (1956).

3 As the majority notes, it is not clear whether this particular rule applies

in the criminal context, and we need not reach that issue in this case.

4 Although this position no longer exists, at the time, the Office of the

Executive Secretary of the State Judicial Department was a position

appointed by the Chief Court Administrator, and the individual appointed

to that position handled the administration of the nonjudicial business of

the Judicial Department. See General Statutes (Rev. to 1977) § 51-8.