A nolle prosequi may not be entered as to any count in a complaint or information if the accused objects to the nolle prosequi and demands either a trial or dismissal, except with respect to prosecutions in which a nolle prosequi is entered upon a representation to the court by the prosecuting official that a material witness has died, disappeared or become disabled or that material evidence has disappeared or has been destroyed and that a further investigation is therefore necessary.

Cited. 180 C. 153. The court must accept the entry of nolle prosequi for the record unless it is persuaded that prosecutor’s exercise of discretion is clearly contrary to manifest public interest. 185 C. 199. Cited. 191 Conn. 27; 198 Conn. 435. Entry of nolles over defendant’s objection fits within exception to rule of finality allowing appeal of interlocutory trial court rulings that, if erroneous, cannot later be remedied. 209 C. 52. Gives defendant the right to have criminal charge disposed of with finality by dismissal with prejudice. Id., 133. Cited. 214 C. 616; 233 C. 44; 240 C. 590. Trial court properly allowed the entry of nolle prosequi based on the state’s representations that a key witness against defendant was unavailable due to the witness’ intent to assert his fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination, and the court was not required to conduct an evidentiary hearing re the state’s representations; nolle prosequi functionally converted into a dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Sec. 54-142a(c) after 13 months had elapsed, therefore the state was not barred from bringing charges against defendant 4 years later and defendant’s right to a speedy trial was not violated. 289 C. 598. Cited. 5 Conn.App. 347; 10 CA 217; 11 Conn.App. 224; 40 CA 705; judgment reversed, see 240 Conn. 590; 44 Conn.App. 162. Defendant’s objection to entry of nolle made 7 weeks after it had been entered was not timely and fell outside limited jurisdiction retained by the court following the entry of nolle. 111 CA 397. Defendant’s infraction ticket was a complaint and, therefore, he was entitled to object to the entry of nolle and demand a trial or a dismissal. 143 CA 194. The phrase “has . . . become disabled” does not mean “unavailable” and was not intended to extend to instances in which the state lacks the ability to compel a witness to testify at trial; the term “disappeared” does not mean absent from the jurisdiction. 179 CA 676.