Corey v. State

• Decision Date: 08 November 1939
• Citation: 9 A.2d 283,126 Conn. 41
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: COREY v. STATE.

9 A.2d 283

126 Conn. 41

COREY v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

November 8, 1939

Appeal from Superior Court, New London County; Alfred C. Baldwin Judge.

John Corey was found guilty of robbery while armed and filed a petition for new trial brought to the superior court in New London county, and tried to the court. From a judgment denying the petition, petitioner appeals.

No error.

A. A Washton, of New London, and Samuel A. Bithoney, of Boston Mass., for appellant.

Arthur M. Brown, State's Atty., of Norwich, for appellee.

Argued Before MALTBIE, C.J., and HINMAN, AVERY, and JENNINGS, JJ.

MALTBIE, Chief Justice.

This is a petition for a new trial in a criminal action in which the plaintiff had been found guilty of the crime of robbery while armed. The substantial grounds for relief claimed by him as stated in his brief are that he was not present during the selection of the jury on the original trial; that while in the court room he was so placed that he could not see or hear the witnesses who testified against him; that the public defender who represented him was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to prepare his defense; and that he did not have a fair trial because of the presence in and about the court room of fourteen policemen; because he was kept shackled to another prisoner, and because a hostile public sentiment toward him improperly influenced the jury. Passing the question whether these are proper grounds for a petition for a new trial, all having been open to the plaintiff upon an appeal from the judgment in the original action, the claims with one exception, find no support in the finding and indeed, most of them are directly negatived by it; nor in the absence of the evidence could we correct or add to it.

It is true that the plaintiff introduced in evidence in support of his claim that he could not see or hear the witnesses, two photographs of the court room; but, in view of the great possibility of distortion of perspective in photographs, they cannot prevail over the court's express finding that the plaintiff could see and hear each witness against him. It does appear in the finding that during most of the trial the plaintiff sat in the prisoner's pen, handcuffed to one Dirga, who was jointly charged with him. While it is undoubtedly true that one accused of crime should not be shackled while on trial unless there is reasonable necessity for doing so, it is not a violation of his rights if there is a reasonable ground...