State v. Anonymous (1973-2)

• Decision Date: 01 January 1978
• Citation: 30 Conn.Supp. 553,301 A.2d 268
• Court: Connecticut Court of Appeals

301 A.2d 268

30 Conn.Supp. 553

STATE of Connecticut v. ANOYMOUS (1973-2).

Court of Common Pleas of Connecticut, Appellate Division.

MISSAL, Judge.

In a trial to the court, the defendant was found guilty of the crime of breaking and entering a motor vehicle with criminal intent. General Statutes § 53-76. He has appealed, assigning as the sole error that the court concluded on all the evidence that the defendant was guilty of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. Practice Book § 995. Upon this assignment of error, we determine from the entire evidence whether the court erred in holding that guilt was established by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Salvaggio, 152 Conn. 716, 717, 210 A.2d 175; State v. Pundy, 147 Conn. 7, 8, 156 A.2d 193.

There was competent evidence adduced to establish the following salient facts: A witness, driving his automobile, observed two men, who were acting suspiciously, standing near a convertible motor vehicle. The witness soon thereafter parked behind the car in question and at that time he observed that one person was inside the convertible and the other leaning against it. At that time, the man leaning against the car walked to a telephone booth seventy-five feet away and dialed a number. The man inside the car got out and walked away. The police were called and investigated. They found that the side vent of the convertible had been pried and the door opened. The cap over the ignition had been pulled off. No permission had been given to enter the car. The defendant was positively identified as the man who leaned against the car. The man who was inside the convertible was not identified, nor was he a witness in this case.

The state contends that all the evidence adduced, together with such inferences as the court was warranted in drawing from facts established, proved that the defendant was present when the crime was committed and that he was an active companion. If the defendant and the man inside the convertible had been acting in concert with a common purpose to break into the motor vehicle-even if the defendant was only a lookout for the other man-both would be equally guilty of committing the offense. State v. Mele, 125 Conn. 210, 213, 4 A.2d 336; State v. Thomas, 105 Conn. 757, 763, 136 A. 475; State v. Scott, 80 Conn. 317, 323, 68 A. 258; State v. Gorman, 22 Conn.Sup. 196, 164 A.2d 727.

The record does not contain a positive identification of the man who was seen inside the convertible or any reference to any relationship whatsoever between that man and the defendant. There is not a scintilla of evidence that the defendant, himself, had broken into and entered the motor vehicle. Hence, the only way the defendant could be implicated in this offense is to prove that he was an accessory of the man inside the car.

The trier was entitled to draw all fair and reasonable inferences from the facts established by the evidence, but the conclusions based on them must not be the result of speculation and conjecture. An accused may not be...