276 A.2d 452 (Conn.Cir.Ct. 1971), State v. Anonymous (1971-8)

Citation:276 A.2d 452, 6 Conn.Cir.Ct. 470
Opinion Judge:KOSICKI, Judge.
Party Name:STATE of Connecticut v. ANONYMOUS (1971-8).
Judge Panel:In this opinion CASALE and JACOBS, JJ., concurred. KOSICKI,
Court:Circuit Court of Connecticut

Page 452

276 A.2d 452 (Conn.Cir.Ct. 1971)

6 Conn.Cir.Ct. 470

STATE of Connecticut

v.

ANONYMOUS (1971-8).

Circuit Court of Connecticut.

1971

Page 453

KOSICKI, Judge.

The defendant was tried Before a jury of twelve on the sole charge of operating a motor vehicle on a public highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, in violation of § 14-227a of the General Statutes. Of this charge he was found guilty. The defendant moved to set aside the verdict, and the motion was denied. From the judgment rendered, the defendant has appealed.

We cannot overlook the irregularities in the procedure followed in pursuing this appeal, which are apparent from an examination of the record. The original finding of the trial court was drawn essentially[6 Conn.Cir.Ct. 471] in the form of a finding of facts on an appeal in a court case. This was followed later by a 'Corrected Finding, Jury Case.' In this latter finding, the facts are stated as in a court case, but the court included, as well, the claims of the defendant pertaining to the asserted errors in the charge and in rulings on evidence. This portion of the finding was in conformity with the requirements of § 999 of the Practice Book and Forms 604, 819(C) and 820 contained therein. The parties in this case acquiesced in the procedure followed and, to the extent that it is possible for us to do so, we shall consider the errors assigned in this appeal.

There is no substantial dispute over the facts on which the state and the defendant offered evidence and which they claimed to have proved on the trial of this case to the jury. The defendant, who was deaf as a result of spinal meningitis, needed the assistance of an interpreter during his trial. Because of the availability of a competent interpreter, because of the defendant's ability to read lips, and because of the use of his other sensory capacities, the defendant was aware of the proceedings.

Page 454

He is employed in a responsible position and is alert, poised and well educated.

On the evening in question, after leaving his office and while on his way to his home, he visited a restaurant. He remained there for about an hour and consumed some alcoholic drinks. Upon leaving the restaurant, he proceeded west, intending to drive to his home. As he approached an intersection, he was observed by a police officer stationed there on duty. The officer who had received a radio communication converning the operation of a car like that of the defendant, stepped into the intersection, put up his hand and motioned for the defendant's car to stop. The vehicle did not stop and the officer had to step to his right to get out of its way. The [6 Conn.Cir.Ct. 472] traffic behind the defendant's car had come to a halt in response to the officer's signal. The defendant proceeded through the intersection at approximately ten miles per hour. The officer moved rapidly along the driver's side and shouted at the operator to stop. The defendant turned and looked at the officer, gradually picked up speed, and continued west. The defendant appeared to be dazed and glassy-eyed, and his head was bobbing.

The defendant was next observed by a police officer in a...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP