State v. Pope

Citation313 A.2d 84,6 Conn.Cir.Ct. 712
Decision Date08 December 1972
Docket NumberNo. CR,CR
CourtCircuit Court of Connecticut. Connecticut Circuit Court, Appellate Division
PartiesSTATE of Connecticut v. Anthony G. POPE. 18-6049.

Nicholas B. Eddy, Winsted, for the appellant (defendant).

Frank R. Buonocore, Prosecuting Atty., for the appellee (state).

DEARINGTON, Judge.

The defendant was convicted of the crime of negligent homicide in violation of § 14-218 1 of the General Statutes and has appealed.

The trial court concluded that the sole proximate cause of death was the negligent acts of the defendant in that he failed to keep a proper lookout for persons in and upon the highway; in that he operated his vehicle in such a manner as to endanger the life and limb of the decedent; in that he did not have his vehicle under proper control; and in that he operated his vehicle at a speed greater than was reasonable, having regard to width, traffic and use of the highway and weather conditions, in violation of § 14-219 (speeding). The court further concluded that the decedent and her two companions were clearly visible, since the area was well lighted and visibility was good. Thereupon, the court found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of violating § 14-218.

The defendant claimed that the court ignored the decedent's conduct, which, it is asserted, was a substantial factor and contributed to the accident. In short, it is argued that the conduct of the decedent constituted contributory negligence. Section 14-218 provided that '(a)ny person who, in consequence of the negligent operation of a motor vehicle upon the highways of this state, causes the loss of any human life' shall be subject to the penalty provided. The defendant contends that contributory negligence of a decedent in a negligent homicide case is a factor to be considered, and if such negligence is established it becomes a defense. Contributory negligence has been held to be no defense if a defendant's vehicle is operated in a grossly negligent or reckless manner. State v. Alterio, 154 Conn. 23, 29, 220 A.2d 451; State v. Campbell, 82 Conn. 671, 675, 74 A. 927. We have been unable to find a reported case in this jurisdiction holding that contributory negligence is a defense where one is charged with a violation of § 14-218, wherein the culpable standard is described in terms of 'negligence' without the use of modifying words or phrases. The general rule that contributory negligence is not a defense in a criminal case; 21 Am.Jur.2d, Criminal Law, § 139; would appear to apply in a negligent homicide case where ordinary negligence is one of the required elements, unless such negligence on the part of the decedent is found to be the sole proximate cause of his own death. Note, 20 A.L.R.3d 473, 481. Thus, the alleged negligence of a decedent becomes a material factor in the case solely as it bears on the question of the defendant's negligence. See State v. Campbell, supra. If it is shown that the sole proximate cause of death is the decedent's own negligence rather than that of the defendant, there can be no conviction. People v. Pociask, 14 Cal.2d 679, 96 P.2d 788. If, however, the defendant's negligence was the cause of the decedent's death, the defendant would be responsible under the statute whether or not the decedent's failure to use due care contributed to his injuries, since contributory negligence is no defense in such a case. People v. Clark, ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Hart v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • 18 Enero 1977
    ...fact that the deceased was also negligent.' Maxon v. State, 177 Wis. 379, 386, 387, 187 N.W. 753, 756 (1922). See also State v. Pope, 6 Conn.Cir. 712, 313 A.2d 84 (1972); People v. Pociask, 14 Cal.2d 679, 96 P.2d 788 (1939); Annot. Negligent homicide as affected by negligence or other misco......
  • State v. Munnell
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Minnesota
    • 7 Marzo 1984
    ...homicide cases. Wren v. State, 577 P.2d 235 (Alaska 1978); Hart v. State, 75 Wis.2d 371, 249 N.W.2d 810 (1977); State v. Pope, 6 Conn.Cir.Ct. 712, 313 A.2d 84 (1972). However, a victim's negligence is relevant on the questions of whether the defendant was negligent, and, if so, whether that......
  • State v. Shumway
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Arizona
    • 17 Marzo 1983
    ...the contributing negligence of the victim is no defense. Hart v. State, 75 Wis.2d 371, 249 N.W.2d 810 (1977). See also State v. Pope, 6 Conn.Cir. 712, 313 A.2d 84 (1972); People v. Pociask, 14 Cal.2d 679, 96 P.2d 788 (1939); Annot. 20 A.L.R.3d 473, 481 § 5 (1968); Annot. 57 A.L.R. 922 (1930......
  • State v. Lin Qi Si
    • United States
    • Appellate Court of Connecticut
    • 28 Agosto 2018
    ...contributed to his injuries, since contributory negligence is no defense in such a case." (Citation omitted.) State v. Pope , 6 Conn. Cir. Ct. 712, 714, 313 A.2d 84 (1972).The complete defense of sole proximate cause to the charge of negligent homicide with a commercial motor vehicle is ava......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT