State v. Anonymous (1971-6)
| Decision Date | 01 January 1971 |
| Citation | 6 Conn.Cir.Ct. 451,275 A.2d 618 |
| Court | Connecticut Circuit Court |
The defendant was given a uniform traffic summons (see Practice Book § 852) for failure to obey a traffic control signal on a public highway, in violation of § 14-299 of the General Statutes. 1 The defendant's pretrial motion for a jury trial was denied, and, after a trial to the court, the defendant was found not guilty and an order of discharge was entered.
On this appeal, the defendant claims that the statute (§ 51-266) denying the right to trial by jury where the maximum authorized penalty is a fine of $50 or a jail sentence of thirty days, or both, is unconstitutional under federal and state constitutional provisions.
In Baldwin v. New York, 399 U.S. 66, 68, 90 S.Ct. 1886, 1887, 26 L.Ed.2d 437, the United States Supreme Court said: 'In Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 88 S.Ct. 1444, 20 L.Ed.2d 491 (1968), we held that the Sixth Amendment, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth, requires that defendants accused of serious crimes be afforded the right to trial by jury. We also reaffirmed the long-established view that so-called 'petty offenses' may be tried without a jury.'
The question in this case is whether the severity of the maximum authorized penalty-a fine of not more than $50-is enough in itself to require the opportunity for a jury trial. We hold that it is not. In our view, failure to obey a traffic control signal is a 'petty offense' because it is an offense 'which * * * (does) not offend too deeply the moral purposes of the community, which * * * (is) not to close to society's danger, and * * * (is) stigmatized by punishment relatively light.' 2 Frankfurter & Corcoran, 'Petty Federal Offenses and the Constitutional Guaranty of Trial by Jury,' 39 Harv.L.Rev. 917, 981; cf. Kaye, 'Petty Offenders Have No Peers,' 26 U.Chi.L.Rev. Rev. 245, 271.
Apart from the fact that the question raised on appeal is now moot; see Eastern Electric Construction Co. v. Morrissey, 142 Conn. 742, 743, 115 A.2d 427; we are entirely satisfied that the defendant has been deprived of no right to which he was constitutionally entitled. See McGarty v. Deming, 51 Conn. 422, 423; Goddard v. State, 12 Conn. 448, 454; State v. Heller, 4 Conn.Cir. 174, 177, 228 A.2d 815, cert. denied, 389 U.S. 902, 88 S.Ct. 213, 19 L.Ed.2d 218.
The appeal is dismissed.
* Thus entitled, in view of General Statutes § 54-90.
1 Under the penalty provisions of chapter 249, entitled, 'Uniform...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Bennion
... ... Some supreme courts of states which numbered among the original thirteen have made similar assumptions. E.g. State v. Anonymous, 6 Conn.Cir. 451, 275 A.2d 618, 619 (1971); State v. Maier, 13 N.J. 235, 99 A.2d 21, 47 (1953) ... In other states, the scope of ... ...
-
People v. Oppenheimer, Cr. A
... ... The common law respecting trial by jury as it existed in 1850 is the rule of decision in this state (citation omitted). Any act of the Legislature attempting to abridge the constitutional right is ... Shak (Hawaii 1970) 466 P.2d 422, and in State v. Anonymous (1971--6) 6 Conn.Cir. 451, 275 A.2d 618.) 8 ... Defendant here suffered no ... ...
-
State v. Anonymous (1971-16)
... ... Section 51-266 of the General Statutes provides that '(t)here shall be no right to trial by jury in criminal actions where the maximum penalty is a fine of fifty dollars or a jail sentence of thirty days, or both.' We had occasion to consider this question in State v. Anonymous (1971-6), 6 Conn.Cir.Ct. 451, 452, 275 A.2d 618, and there held that § 51-266 violated no constitutional right to which the defendant was entitled. We noted Duncan v. Louisiana, supra, which holds (391 U.S. p. 159, 88 S.Ct. p. 1453): 'Crimes carrying possible penalties up to six months do not require a ... ...
-
State v. Wheeler
... ... McGarty v. Deming, 51 Conn. 422, 423 (1883) (drunkenness); Goddard v. State, 12 Conn. 448, 454 (1838) (breach of the Sabbath); State v. Anonymous (1971-6), 6 Conn.Cir. 451, 452, 275 A.2d 618 (traffic signal violation); State v. Heller, 4 Conn.Cir. 174, 177, 228 A.2d 815 (1966), cert. denied, ... ...