270 A.2d 543 (Conn. 1970), State v. Memoli

Citation:270 A.2d 543, 159 Conn. 433
Opinion Judge:ALCORN, C.J.
Party Name:STATE of Connecticut v. Richard F. MEMOLI.
Attorney:James F. Bingham, Stamford, for appellant (defendant)., Arlen D. Nickowitz, Asst. State's Atty., with whom, on the brief, was Joseph T. Gormley, Jr., State's Atty., for appellee (State). James F. Bingham, for the appellant (defendant). Arlen D. Nickowitz, assistant state's attorney, with whom, o...
Judge Panel:In this opinion the other Judges concurred. Before ALCORN, CJ, and HOUSE, THIM, RYAN and SHAPIRO
Case Date:June 03, 1970
Court:Supreme Court of Connecticut

Page 543

270 A.2d 543 (Conn. 1970)

159 Conn. 433

STATE of Connecticut

v.

Richard F. MEMOLI.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

June 3, 1970

Page 544

James F. Bingham, Stamford, for appellant (defendant).

Arlen D. Nickowitz, Asst. State's Atty., with whom, on the brief, was Joseph T. Gormley, Jr., State's Atty., for appellee (State).

Before ALCORN, C.J., and HOUSE, THIM, RYAN and SHAPIRO, JJ.

[159 Conn. 434] ALCORN, Chief Justice.

The defendant was tried upon an information charging him with the crimes of breaking and entering a motor vehicle; General Statutes § 53-76; and larceny; General Statutes § 53-63. He was convicted by a jury and has appealed from the judgment on the verdict.

From the evidence introduced at the trial the state claimed to have proved that, in the early morning hours of December 9, 1967, the defendant and Richard Franco broke into an automobile while it was parked, with the doors locked, on a public street in Stamford and stole a sum of money which was locked in the glove compartment of the vehicle. Franco and the defendant were arrested at approximately 2:54 a.m. on the morning of the alleged crimes. They were brought immediately to police headquarters, where a police detective gave both men the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, after which the detective talked to each man separately. Franco and the defendant roomed in a building in Stamford known as the 'Clubmen's Club'. Both men consented to a search of their room at the Clubmen's Club, and Franco gave the detective a key with which to enter the building. The detective and others entered the building and searched the defendant's room, in which they found about $61 in a wooden vase under the bed and $307 in the pocket of a coat belonging to the defendant. All of the items found were admitted into evidence.

When a police detective testifying for the state began to describe his entry into the building, defense[159 Conn. 435] counsel interrupted and the court excused the jury. Thereupon, in the absence of the jury, defense counsel made a motion to suppress any evidence obtained during the search of the Clubmen's Club. Following a hearing held in the absence of the jury, the court denied the motion to suppress and, after the jury were recalled, admitted into evidence the fruits of the search. The defendant assigns error in this action of the court.

It is conceded that the search was made without a warrant. From the hearing on

Page 545

the motion to suppress, the trial court found that Franco and the defendant, who lived at the Clubmen's Club, were arrested, brought to police headquarters, warned of their constitutional rights, and interrogated separately by Detective Anthony J. Scalise, that 'Franco and Memoli gave Detective Scalise their consent to search their room.' that Franco gave Detective Scalise the key to the front door in order to enter, and that '(t)he rooms of both Franco and Memoli were located on the second floor of the club'. (Emphasis supplied.) To understand the finding more fully, we have examined the evidence printed in the appendices to the briefs. Quednau v. Langrish, 144 Conn. 706, 711, 137 A.2d 544; Maltbie, Conn.App.Proc. § 131. There we find that Detective Scalise testified that he asked the defendant and Franco if he could search their room and they said he could. Franco gave...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP