State v. Van Allen
| Decision Date | 26 January 1954 |
| Citation | 140 Conn. 586,102 A.2d 526 |
| Parties | STATE v. VAN ALLEN. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Ufa E. Guthrie, Hartford, for appellant (defendant).
Roger F. Gleason, Pros. Atty., Hartford, for appellee (State).
Before INGLIS, C. J., and BALDWIN, O'SULLIVAN, QUINLAN and WYNNE, JJ.
The information charged the defendant with the crime of breach of the peace in violation of § 8518 of the General Statutes. The defendant was found guilty by the court and has appealed. He assigns error in the conclusion of guilt, in the finding, and in the admission of evidence of previous convictions of the defendant offered to attack his credibility and to aid the court in passing sentence after conviction. By an amendment to the assignments of error he also raises questions concerning rulings subsequent to the trial.
The following is a summary of the facts found by the court and supported by the evidence. Between 1 a.m. and 6 a.m. on July 8, 1952, the Hartford police department received from residents in the vicinity of Sigourney Street near Albany Avenue six complaints that there was a prowler in the neighborhood. In connection with some of the complaints, a description of the prowler's clothes was furnished to the police. A family by the name of McKeough lived at 360 Sigourney Street. At about 1 a.m. a loud commotion on their back porch was heard. Someone was heard walking on the porch and later running down the steps with a growling dog in pursuit. The McKeough daughters immediately ran to the front of the house and saw a man wearing clothes tallying with those worn by the defendant when they saw him later in the morning in the custody of the police. The man concealed himself across the street and returned when the lights in the McKeough house were extinguished at 2 a.m. The entire McKeough family were excited and made nervous and apprehensive by the commotion on the porch and by the prowling. Because of their fear of what would happen they were afraid to go to bed until well after 2 a.m. The man did no damage to property, nor did he say anything. The defendant, dressed according to the description given, was arrested at 6:30 a.m. and identified by the McKeough daughters. He gave conflicting accounts of his whereabouts throughout the night.
The defendant maintains that the evidence was insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. His claim in this regard is based upon the proposition that he was found guilty of violating the statute, although the acts with which he was charged are not specifically proscribed by it. 'Breach of the peace' has been the subject of a statute from the days of Swift. In one of his works, he wrote that the offense was not committed unless the conduct of the accused constituted an assault and battery at common law. 2 Swift's System 341. His position was grounded in part at least, on the provision then appearing in the statute that the offending party should pay just damages to the party injured. Statutes, 1796, p. 336, § 1. From this Swift reasoned that there could not properly be said to be an injured party unless an assault or a battery had been committed. The statute, however, has been drastically changed since Swift's time. The provision mentioned above, on which he relied, has been discarded. We have taken note of this and have held that under the statute as it is now phrased, § 8518 1 of the General Statutes, a breach of the peace may be committed without proof of an assault or a battery. State v. Farrall, 29 Conn. 72, 73.
'The peace' has been defined by us to be 'that state and sense of safety which is necessary to the comfort and happiness of every citizen, and which government is instituted to secure.' Malley v. Lane, 97 Conn. 133, 138, 115 A. 674, 676. It is sufficient that the acts intentionally committed are of such a nature that they naturally cause serious disquietude on the part of those in the vicinity. 1 Bishop, Criminal Law (9th Ed.) § 539. No specific intent to break the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Of Conn. v. Courchesne, No. 17174.
...to take that approach, for example, where the statute at issue “has been drastically changed since Swift's time”; State v. Van Allen, 140 Conn. 586, 589, 102 A.2d 526 (1954); see also State v. Nixon, 32 Conn.App. 224, 246, 630 A.2d 74 (1993) (refusing to engraft common-law definition of rio......
-
State v. Courchesne, (SC 17174) (Conn. 6/15/2010)
...to take that approach, for example, where the statute at issue "has been drastically changed since Swift's time"; State v. Van Allen, 140 Conn. 586, 589, 102 A.2d 526 (1954); see also State v. Nixon, 32 Conn. App. 224, 246, 630 A.2d 74 (1993) (refusing to engraft common-law definition of ri......
-
State v. Anonymous (1971-4)
...in many cases. It would serve no purpose to dwell on the many aspects of what constitutes 'Breach of the peace.' See State v. Van Allen, 140 Conn. 586, 589, 102 A.2d 526; State v. Cantwell, 126 Conn. 1, 6, 7, 8 A.2d 533, rev'd on other grounds, 310 U.S. 296, 309, 60 S.Ct. 900, 84 L.Ed. 1213......
-
State v. Fields
...in many cases. It would serve no purpose to dwell on the many aspects of what constitutes 'Breach of the peace.' See State v. Van Allen, 140 Conn. 586, 589, 102 A.2d 526; State v. Cantwell, 126 Conn. 1, 6, 7, 8, A.2d 533, rev'd on other grounds, 310 U.S. 296, 309, 60 S.Ct. 900, 84 L.Ed. 121......