280 A.2d 542 (Conn.Cir.Ct. 1971), State v. Anonymous (1971-19)

Citation:280 A.2d 542, 6 Conn.Cir.Ct. 577
Opinion Judge:DEARINGTON, Judge.
Party Name:STATE of Connecticut v. ANONYMOUS (1971-19).
Judge Panel:In this opinion CASALE and ARMENTANO, JJ., concurred. DEARINGTON,
Court:Circuit Court of Connecticut

Page 542

280 A.2d 542 (Conn.Cir.Ct. 1971)

6 Conn.Cir.Ct. 577

STATE of Connecticut


ANONYMOUS (1971-19).

Circuit Court of Connecticut.



The defendant was found guilty by a jury of violating § 53-298 of the General

Page 543

Statutes, relating to policy, a form of betting. It is unnecessary in our review to relate in detail the circumstances of the alleged offense. It suffices to note that that the state produced evidence to prove and claimed to have proved that the defendant was the owner of a restaurant. A sergeant in the criminal [6 Conn.Cir.Ct. 578] intelligence division of the state police, together with other officers, entered the restaurant armed with a search warrant When they entered, an undercover agent, a state trooper, was on the premises. Before entering through a rear door, the sergeant had a conversation with the trooper through a rear window adjacent to the door. As a result of the conversation, the sergeant had occasion to look under a pile of dishes in the kitchen of the restaurant, where he found a piece of paper. He concluded from his training and experience that the items on the paper represented policy bets, and he arrested the defendant. The piece of paper was admitted in evidence over the defendant's objection. The undercover agent had arrived at the restaurant earlier that morning and had overheard a conversation between the defendant and an older man, although he did not hear the precise words being spoken. This man had just written on the inside of a matchbook cover. The man gave the defendant two $1 bills, and thereafter the defendant took the matchbook cover, went to a telephone in the kitchen, and made a call. After completing the call, the defendant went to a pile of dishes and placed either the matchbook cover or a slip of paper under the dishes.

The defendant has filed a lengthy brief in support of numerous assignments of error commencing with the court's rulings on preliminary motions and claiming further errors in the trial arising from rulings on evidence as well as in the court's charge to the jury. Upon a review of the entire case as briefed and argued, we conclude that a decision upon one of the defendant's assignments of error is dispositive of the appeal. This assignment relates to testimony concerning organized or syndicated crime.

The sergeant, who qualified as an expert witness, testified that the piece of paper admitted in evidence was of the sort used in policy playing and in his [6 Conn.Cir.Ct. 579] opinion contained six policy bets. He 'explained the significance and meaning...

To continue reading