No judge of any court who tried a case without a jury in which a new trial is granted, or in which the judgment is reversed by the Supreme Court, may again try the case. No judge of any court who presided over any jury trial, either in a civil or criminal case, in which a new trial is granted, may again preside at the trial of the case.

(1949 Rev., S. 7697; P.A. 74-183, S. 282, 291; P.A. 76-436, S. 60, 681; P.A. 82-248, S. 92.)

History: P.A. 74-183 prohibited judge who tried case in which judgment was reversed in appellate session of superior court from trying case again, effective December 31, 1974; P.A. 76-436 deleted provision added by P.A. 74-183, effective July 1, 1978; Sec. 51-41 transferred to Sec. 51-183c in the 1977 Court Reorganization Supplement; P.A. 82-248 rephrased section but made no substantive change.

Annotations to former section 51-41:

Applies though offenses not in all respects the same. 75 C. 109. Does not create a jurisdictional infirmity which the parties are powerless to remedy by waiver or consent. 147 C. 296. Where judge who tried defendant had been a member of the sentence review division which had heard defendant's application for a review of his sentence on a previous conviction, there was not even a technical infraction of section since the powers of the sentence review division are limited to a review of the sentence imposed and have nothing to do with the ascertainment of guilt or innocence. 152 C. 629.

Section does not prevent original presiding judge from discontinuing case at regular annual call of docket. 3 CS 420.

Annotations to present section:

Cited. 186 C. 426; 188 C. 354; 216 C. 813; 227 C. 784; 242 C. 617. Sentencing hearing does not constitute a trial within meaning of section and defendant's motion that case be assigned to a new judge for resentencing is without merit. 260 C. 93.

Cited. 10 CA 103. Term “trial” not intended to include pretrial or short calendar proceedings. 27 CA 15. Section does not apply to pretrial or short calendar proceedings, and accordingly, court unwilling to unilaterally extend its legislative policy to arbitration process. 66 CA 202. Section is clear and unambiguous, and explicitly prohibits a judge who tries a case that is thereafter reversed from trying the case on remand, there being no reasonable manner in which the language can be interpreted to yield a different result. 133 CA 431; judgment reversed, see 311 C. 649. Section not restricted to cases in which issues to be considered on remand are identical to those that already had been decided by the trial judge, and it is of no consequence to proper application of section that a remand order require consideration of an issue in the case that the trial judge had yet to resolve on its merits or that the prior judgment had not been reversed with respect to the trial judge's resolution of that unresolved issue of fact. 166 CA 408.