State v. Herring (1988)
In State v. Herring, 209 Conn. 52, 54-55, 547 A.2d 6 (1988), the Court concluded that it was plain error for the trial court to allow a nolle to enter over a defendant's objection unless the state made the required representation as required by 54-56b.
In discussing the appropriate remedy, the court stated:
"That being so, we find error and remand this matter to the trial court with instructions to allow the state the opportunity to make the requisite representations to allow the trial court to determine whether nolles should enter as to the charges in question. . . . If the state is unable or unwilling to make the requisite representations, the defendant is entitled to a dismissal of the charges or an immediate trial." 209 Conn. at 58-59.