200 A.2d 479 (Conn. 1964), State v. Griswold
|Citation:||200 A.2d 479, 151 Conn. 544|
|Opinion Judge:||COMLEY, J.|
|Party Name:||STATE of Connecticut v. Estelle T. GRISWOLD. STATE of Connecticut v. C. Lee BUXTON.|
|Attorney:||Catherine G. Roraback, New Haven, for appellants (defendants)., Julius Maretz, Pros. Atty., and Joseph B. Clark, Asst. Pros. Atty., for appellee (state). Catherine G. Roraback, for the appellants (defendants). Julius Maretz, prosecuting attorney, and Joseph B. Clark, assistant prosecuting attorn...|
|Judge Panel:||In this opinion the other Judges concurred. Before KING, C J, and MURPHY, SHEA, ALCORN and COMLEY|
|Case Date:||April 28, 1964|
|Court:||Supreme Court of Connecticut|
After a trial to the court in the Circuit Court for the sixth circuit at New Haven, the defendants were found guilty as accessories to certain violations of General Statutes § 53-32, which appears with the statute on accessories in the footnote. 1 The principal offenders were not prosecuted.
The convictions of the accessories were sustained by the Appellate Division of the Circuit Court, which, at the same time, certified that there were substantial questions of law which should be reviewed by this court. These questions, together with others certified by us, are now Before us on this appeal.
There is no significant dispute about the facts. In November, 1961, The Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut occupied offices at 79 Trumbull Street in New Haven. For ten days during that month the league operated a planned parenthood center in the same building. The defendant Estelle T. Griswold is the salaried executive director of the league and served as acting director of the center. The other defendant, C. Lee Buxton, a physician, who has specialized in the fields of gynecology and obstetrics, was the medical director of the center. The purpose of the center was to provide information, instruction and medical advice to married persons concerning various means of preventing conception. In addition, patients were furnished with various contraceptive devices, drugs [151 Conn. 546] or materials. A fee, measured by ability to pay, was collected from the patient. At the trial, three married women from New Haven testified that they had visited the center, had received advice, instruction and certain contraceptive devices and materials from either or both of the defendants and had used these devices and materials in subsequent marital relations with their husbands. Upon these facts, there is no doubt that, within the meaning of § 54-196 of the General Statutes, the defendants did aid, abet and counsel...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP