Cinque v. Boyd
| Decision Date | 01 June 1923 |
| Citation | 121 A. 678,99 Conn. 70 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | CINQUE v. BOYD. |
Case Reserved from Court of Common Pleas, New Haven County; Ernest C. Simpson, Judge.
Application for writ of habeas corpus by Louis Cinque against Edward S Boyd, Superintendent. Case reserved from Court of Common Pleas. Judgment for plaintiff advised.
Reservation by the court of common pleas for New Haven county, upon a writ of habeas corpus obtained by the plaintiff alleging illegal detention of his son, Michael Cinque, reserved (Simpson, J.) for the advice of this court upon an agreed statement of facts. Judgment for plaintiff advised.
The facts agreed upon by the parties to the suit of habeas corpus are as follows:
(1) Michael Cinque, a minor 14 years old, was on October 22 1922, arrested by the New Haven police and charged by them with having aided and abetted another boy or (other) boys in taking from the person of a man said to be under the influence of liquor a small sum of money, said to be about $2.50.
(2) Thereafter and on October 23, 1922, said Michael Cinque was complained against (by petition) by Sheriden T Whitaker, city attorney for the city of New Haven, in a complaint (petition) which appears as a part of the answer in this action, being a part of the warrant (of commitment) upon which the defendant herein seeks to justify his detention of the said Michael Cinque, and being that portion of said warrant of commitment which is the petition preceeding the order for a rehearing thereon.
(3) On October 24, 1922, said Michael Cinque was brought before the juvenile court for the city of New Haven; being a court claimed to have been established under, by virtue of and pursuant to chapter 336 of the Public Acts of 1921.
(4) On said day a hearing was ordered by said juvenile court upon said petition, and hearing was had by said juvenile court Jacob Caplain, Judge, presiding, wherein said Michael Cinque was upon said petition presented to said juvenile court as a delinquent.
(5) The claimed delinquency upon the part of the said Michael Cinque consisted of his having participated as claimed in the offense described in paragraph 1 of this statement of facts, and of his having been upon one or more previous occasions charged with petty theft.
(6) On said day and at the conclusion of said hearing the said Michael Cinque was by said juvenile court committed to the Connecticut School for Boys at Meriden, whereupon said Michael Cinque and the representatives of the father of said Michael Cinque gave notice of appeal to said juvenile court, and offered bail for the appearance of said Michael Cinque on appeal.
(7) Thereafter and on October 25, 1922, the said Michael Cinque appeared before the Hon. Jacob Caplan, sitting as the juvenile court for New Haven, by counsel, and the parent of said Michael Cinque appeared, by counsel, and appealed from the said judgment of the said juvenile court, which said appeal was allowed; whereupon said parties by said counsel moved that bail for the appearance of said Michael Cinque before the appellate court be fixed, which motion said juvenile court denied.
(8) Thereafter bail was duly offered to the clerk of said juvenile court and refused, upon the ground that there was no authority in said juvenile court to take bail on appeal from its orders and judgments.
(9) Thereafter, notwithstanding the allowance of said appeal, the clerk of said juvenile court did not return to the appellate court any record of the proceedings of said juvenile court or of the taking and allowance of said appeal, upon the ground that said clerk of said juvenile court was without authority and without instructions in the premises.
(10) Thereafter this habeas corpus action was brought. and, it being then discovered that no appeal papers from the action of said juvenile court had been returned to the court of common pleas for New Haven county, to which said appeal under the terms of the statute lay, counsel for said Michael Cinque and the parent of said Michael Cinque obtained the appeal papers, a copy of which is attached to the statement of facts, and filed the same with the clerk of the court of common pleas, civil side, for New Haven county.
(11) Said clerk of the court of common pleas for New Haven county received said papers, but refused to formally enter them upon the docket without the payment of $5 entry fee.
(12) Said Michael Cinque is now in the custody of the probation officer for the city of New Haven; having been placed in said custody by the court of common pleas, to which this action of habeas corpus was returnable, and upon the return of this action to said court.
It appears, from the record attached to and made part of the statement of facts, that in the petition of the prosecuting officer it is represented that the condition of the minor, Michael Cinque, was such that it was " for the best interest of said child that an order be granted directing his commitment to Connecticut School for Boys at Meriden." Upon this petition an order was made by the judge of the juvenile court directing service upon the minor personally and also upon the persons alleged to be liable for his support. It was further ordered that a medical examiner of New Haven examine the child, and report at the hearing as to whether or not the latter was mentally defective; and it was further ordered that a probation officer of the city of New Haven fully investigate and report at the hearing as to name, residence, and estate of the child and as to the names, residences, and pecuniary responsibility of those legally liable for the support of the child. It appears from the judgment and order of commitment that these reports were made and considered by the court at the hearing.
The questions reserved for the consideration of this court are as follows:
Whether or not chapter 336 of the Public Acts of 1921, pursuant to which Michael Cinque was purported to have been committed and confined in the Connecticut School for Boys at Meriden, is constitutional and valid, with special reference to these particulars, to wit:
(a) That it denies the right of bail.
(b) That it does not permit the accused to be confronted by the witnesses against him.
(c) That it denies the protection of the same rules of evidence that are followed in all other cases.
(d) That it denies the right of a trial by jury.
(e) That it provides for the detention of a person committed in a penal institution, although there is no conviction against him for any crime.
(f) That it discriminates unjustly and unreasonably between localities in the same State, because juvenile courts are established in some jurisdictions and not in others.
(g) That it states in too broad and inclusive and unreasonable manner the definition of the term " delinquent."
(h) That it denies any appeal to a court where the constitutional right of trial by jury, confrontation of witnesses, and other similar rights can be enjoyed.
(i) That the statute above referred to is so vague, indefinite, and incomplete as to permit no reasonable and just interpretation by the officers administering it, because there is no form of appeal stated, nor can the court know whether it is sitting for a trial de novo or to review the record for error, nor is there anything to confer any jurisdiction upon the civil side of the court of common pleas to hear appealed juvenile cases, nothing to confer any power upon any proper officer or officers to represent the state in any such appeal, and because the court is not empowered to make any final disposition of an appealed juvenile case.
And whether or not pending the disposition of the said appeal the said Michael Cinque can be held without bail.
And whether or not the said writ of habeas corpus shall be maintained or dismissed.
Philip Pond and Raymond E. Baldwin, both of New Haven, for plaintiff.
Edwin S. Pickett, of New Haven, for defendant.
KEELER, J. (after stating the facts as above).
The contentions of the plaintiff in this case are concerned with the constitutionality or the validity otherwise of chapter 336 of the Public Acts of 1921, which is entitled " An act concerning juvenile courts." The purpose of the act is to provide for the proper care, custody, education, and rearing of children under the age of 16, who are dependent uncared for, neglected, defective, or delinquent. Dependent children are defined in the act as those having a suitable home, but who, because of the poverty of parents or other persons maintaining such home, are in need of care; uncared-for children are defined as those who are homeless, or whose home is unsuitable for other reasons than poverty, and who may not support themselves except in occupations which are illegal, or which would subject them to conditions prejudicial to their normal development, physically, mentally, or morally; neglected children are defined as those who, unable lawfully to support themselves, have been abandoned, or are being denied proper physical, mental, or moral care, or are being permitted to live under the evil associations of home or other prejudicial conditions; defective children are defined as those who by deficiency or defect of intelligence require or will require for their own protection or the protection of others, special care, supervision, and control; delinquent children are defined as those who violate any law of the state or local ordinance, or who are habitually truant or incorrigible, or who knowingly or willfully associate with vicious, criminal, or immoral persons, or who use vile, indecent, or profane language, or are guilty of immoral conduct, or are growing up in idleness, ignorance, and vice, or who absent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ramos v. Vernon
...205 Conn. 560, 562-64, 534 A.2d 1165 (1987); State v. Scully, 195 Conn. 668, 669-72, 675-76, 490 A.2d 984 (1985); Cinque v. Boyd, 99 Conn. 70, 71-73, 94, 121 A. 678 (1923).58 In contrast, this court demonstrated its reluctance to facially invalidate a statute pursuant to a search and seizur......
-
In re Ava W.
...matters pursuant to the common law. See In re Appeal of Kindis , 162 Conn. 239, 240, 294 A.2d 316 (1972), citing Cinque v. Boyd , 99 Conn. 70, 82, 121 A. 678 (1923) ; In re Appeal of Kindis , supra, at 240, 294 A.2d 316 ("[t]he authority of the state and the exercise of its jurisdiction [ov......
-
Gaines v. Manson
...appeals by admitting petitioners for habeas corpus to bail. Winnick v. Reilly, 100 Conn. 291, 297, 123 A. 440 (1924); Cinque v. Boyd, 99 Conn. 70, 92, 121 A. 678 (1923); Rose v. Nickeson, 29 Conn.Sup. 81, 82-83, 271 A.2d 855 (1970). In the trial court's choice among these or other possible ......
-
State v. Monahan
...A. 30, Ann.Cas.1912A, 232. Similar statutes have been universally upheld over objections based upon constitutional grounds. Cinque v. Boyd, 99 Conn. 70, 121 A. 678; People v. Lewis, 260 N.Y. 171, 183 N.E. 353, 86 A.L.R. 1001, certiorari denied 289 U.S. 709, 53 S.Ct. 786, 77 L.Ed. 1464; Comm......
-
The Denial of a State Constitutional Right to Bail in Juvenile Proceedings: the Need for Reassessment in Washington State
...bail pending appeal); L.O.W. v. County of Arapahoe, 623 P.2d 1253, 1255 (Colo. 1981) (denying bail pending adjudication); Cinque v. Boyd, 121 A. 678, 682-86 (Conn. 1923) (denying bail pending adjudication and on appeal); In re Ort, 407 N.E.2d 1162, 1164 (Ind. Ct. App. 1980) (denying bail pe......
-
Founding the Connecticut Delinquency Court, 1903-1941
...23. 30. Id., § 18; see also Carmody, supra note 5, at 17. 31. Favors Juvenile Court Proposal, Hartford Courant, Dec. 14, 1921, at 22. 32. 99 Conn. 70, 121 A. 678 (1923). 33. Id. at 74. 34. Id. at 83. 35. Id. at 84-89. 36. Id. at 78. 37. Id. at 90. 38. Id. at 90-91. 39. Id. at 92-93. 40. See......
-
Discovery and Visitation in Connecticut's Juvenile Courts
...or if it is in that minor's best interests. 17. See, supra note 2. 18. PRACTICE BooK §§ 218-249 (Supp. 1990). 19. Cinque v. Boyd , 99 Conn. 70, 121 A. 678 (1923); Dart Mecurn, 19 Conn. Sup. 428,431,116 A.2d 668,669 (Super. Ct. 1955). 20. P. B. §§ 1027(l) and 1039 (Supp. 1990). 21. 35 Conn. ......
-
Race, juvenile justice, and mental health: new dimensions in measuring pervasive bias.
...their courts. Id. at 209. (citing THE CONNECTICUT JUVENILE COURT, ITS STRUCTURE, PHILOSOPHY, PROCEDURE 2 (1959)). (90) See Cinque v. Boyd, 121 A. 678 (Conn. 1023) (holding that the courts' ability to order the detention of a child during the pendency of an appeal violated the State's (91) S......