We further note that this court has applied Crawford when considering statute of limitations claims under § 54-193a. See Roger B. v. Commissioner of Correction , supra, 157 Conn. App. at 274 n.8, 116 A.3d 343 ; State v. Derks , 155 Conn. App. 87, 93–95, 108 A.3d 1157, cert. denied, 315 Conn. 930, 110 A.3d 432 (2015) ; see generally Gonzalez v. Commissioner of Correction , 122 Conn. App. 271, 999 A.2d 781, cert. denied, 298 Conn. 913, 4 A.3d 831 (2010). General Statutes § 54-193 (d) provides: "If the person against whom an indictment, information or complaint for any of said offenses is brought has fled from and resided out of this state during the period so limited, it may be brought against such person at any time within such period, during which such person resides in this state, after the commission of the offense."

Applying this standard, our courts routinely have determined that delays in the execution of an arrest warrant were reasonable when the defendant's departure from the state prevented the prompt execution of a warrant. See, e.g., State v. Swebilius , supra, 325 Conn. at 811 n.14, 159 A.3d 1099 ("delays that have been deemed to be reasonable [under Crawford ] have been as long as fourteen years [when defendant left state]"); Roger B. v. Commissioner of Correction , supra, 190 Conn. App. at 845, 212 A.3d 693 (citing cases and noting that "Connecticut [courts] have determined that a delay in executing an arrest warrant is not unreasonable when a defendant has relocated outside of the state" (internal quotation marks omitted)); State v. Derks , 155 Conn. App. 87, 89–90, 95, 108 A.3d 1157 (delay of nearly twelve years was reasonable under Crawford when defendant moved out of state and was difficult to locate), cert. denied, 315 Conn. 930, 110 A.3d 432 (2015) ; State v. Henriquez , Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven, Docket Nos. CR-09-96308 and CR-09-96309, 2011 WL 782697 (February 4, 2011) (fourteen year delay in serving arrest warrant was not unreasonable under Crawford when defendant left state within days of committing offense and lived under assumed name, making it difficult for police to apprehend him). Thus, our case law belies the state's assertion that obtaining an arrest warrant within the limitation period set by the legislature places the state at a disadvantage.

(Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Derks, 155 Conn.App. 87, 91, 108 A.3d 1157, cert. denied, 315 Conn. 930, 110 A.3d 432 (2015). We next turn to the relevant law.

The court also noted that "Connecticut courts consistently have applied this framework to claims of unreasonable delay in the execution of an arrest warrant issued within the limitation period, regardless of whether a defendant has relocated out of the state. See State v. Figueroa, 235 Conn. 145, 177-78, 665 A.2d 63 (1995); see also State v. Derks, [ 155 Conn.App. 87, 93-95, 108 A.3d 1157, cert. denied, 315 Conn. 930, 110 A.3d 432 (2015)]; Axel D. v. Commissioner of Correction, 135 Conn.App. 428, 434-36, 41 A.3d 1196 (2012); Gonzalez v. Commissioner of Correction, [ 122 Conn.App. 271, 999 A.2d 781, cert. denied, 298 Conn. 913, 4 A.3d 831 (2010)]; Thompson v. Commissioner of Correction, 91 Conn.App. 205, 210-12, 880 A.2d 965 (2005), appeal dismissed, 280 Conn. 509, 909 A.2d 946 (2006)." Roger B. II, supra, 837-38.

Nevertheless, a defendant who resides outside of Connecticut during the relevant time period does not automatically preclude a court from finding that the defendant was not elusive, was available, and was readily approachable. See State v. Derks, 155 Conn.App. 87, 94, 108 A.3d 1157, cert. denied, 315 Conn. 930, 110 A.3d 432 (2015) (holding that the burden did not shift because the defendant moved to Colorado and had multiple addresses there rendering him unavailable); Gonzalez v. Commissioner of Correction, 122 Conn.App. 271, 285-86, 999 A.2d 781, cert. denied, 298 Conn. 913, 4 A.3d 831 (2010) (holding that the burden did not shift as the defendant was in Puerto Rico and not readily available); State v. Soldi, 92 Conn.App. 849, 853-54, 887 A.2d 436, cert. denied, 227 Conn. 913, 895 A.2d 792 (2006) (holding that the burden should have shifted to the state as evidence demonstrated the defendant lived continuously in Connecticut); State v. Culbreath, supra, Superior Court, Docket No. CR14-0147852-S (finding that the burden shifted to the state as the defendant was incarcerated out of state in a federal prison); State v. Gauthier, Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven, geographical area number twenty-three, Docket