Costa v. Reed

• Decision Date: 22 June 1931
• Citation: 155 A. 417,113 Conn. 377
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: COSTA v. REED, Warden.

155 A. 417

113 Conn. 377

COSTA v. REED, Warden.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

June 22, 1931

Case reserved from Superior Court, Hartford County; Newell Jennings, Judge.

Application for writ of habeas corpus by Joseph Costa against Charles S Reed, Warden, to determine the legality of the imprisonment of applicant in the Connecticut State Prison, brought to the superior court for Hartford county, where a demurrer to the second defense of defendant's reply was interposed and the case reserved on the pleading for the advice of court.

Superior court advised to overrule demurrer to second defense of reply.

Francis P. Guilfoile, of Waterbury, for applicant.

Walter Holcomb, State's Atty., of Torrington, for respondent.

Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HAINES, HINMAN, BANKS, and AVERY JJ.

AVERY J.

The application for the writ is made by Joseph Costa, claiming that he is unlawfully imprisoned by the warden of the Connecticut State Prison. The warden filed a return, setting forth that the applicant was detained by virtue of a mittimus of commitment dated November 15, 1929, and issued by order of the superior court, then holden in and for Litchfield county reciting his conviction November 13, 1929, for the crime of injury by dynamiting, and a sentence of imprisonment in the state's prison. To this return the applicant answered that the warrant of commitment was void because it was issued from an alleged criminal session of the superior court, purporting to have been held in the town of Winchester in Litchfield county November 15, 1929, and that chapter 232 of the Public Acts of 1929 provides that criminal sessions of the superior court for Litchfield county shall be held in the town of Litchfield. The answer further averred that the judge presiding over the September criminal session of the superior court in Litchfield adjourned the session from Litchfield to Winchester, and there, assembled with the clerk and other court officials, attempted to try the applicant, and that the superior court had no jurisdiction, since it was not held at the place and time authorized by law, namely, the town of Litchfield.

To this answer, the respondent filed a reply, admitting that the September criminal session of the superior court for Litchfield county was adjourned from Litchfield to Winchester, and, by way of second defense, alleged the following: On the first Tuesday of September, 1929, the county courthouse at Litchfield, and the superior court room therein, were unusable for the purpose of holding court because of extensive repairs then being made, and continued so to December 10, 1929. There were no places, during this period, suitable, adequate, and obtainable in the town of Litchfield for the purpose of holding criminal sessions of the superior court. At Winsted, town of Winchester, Litchfield county, there was and is a superior court room regularly used for the trial of civil causes and suitable for the trial of criminal cases. On the first Tuesday of September, 1929, at which time the session for the transaction of criminal or civil business was fixed by statute to open the court was, at the direction of the Honorable Edwin C. Dickenson, judge thereof, assigned to hold the same, opened at Litchfield, and adjourned to Winsted, where it was thereafter opened and adjourned from time to time until November 13, 1929, when the court was open and in session. The state's attorney for Litchfield county duly gave and sent out notices in writing to parties accused of crime named in the trial list of criminal cases, and to their attorneys, to appear before the court in the courthouse at Winsted on Wednesday, October 2, 1929, at 10 o'clock in the forenoon, and plead to the information for which they were charged, and make their election of trial to court or jury, a copy of which trial list is annexed to and made part of the second defense. On or about October 21, 1929, the applicant, with two others, was arrested in Torrington, Conn., and held on the charge of attempting to cause injury to the person and property of Thomas J. Wall and family, in Torrington, by the use of an explosive compound, placed and exploded against his dweiling house. Later, about October 31, 1929, the applicant was put to plea in the town of Winchester in Litchfield county in the courthouse in Winsted on this charge, and pleaded not guilty, and elected to be tried by the court. On November 13, 1929, the applicant was presented in court in the courthouse in Winsted, and trial of the action was started, and evidence was heard and concluded November 15, 1929. At the conclusion of the trial, the applicant was, by the superior court, found guilty as charged in the information, and sentenced to a term of imprisonment in the Connecticut State Prison at Wethersfield for not less than ten nor more than fifteen years. During all of the trial and at the conclusion thereof. Costa was represented by counsel, who cross-examined witnesses for the state, and examined witnesses on behalf of the applicant who himself took the witness stand and testified. No question or doubt or claim was expressed either by the accused or his attorneys to the superior court or the judge thereof, or arose in or during the course of the trial, that the superior court was without right, authority, or jurisdiction to hear and dispose of the prosecution under the information at Winsted. The crime charged in the information was committed in the town of Torrington in Litchfield county as alleged in the information, and postponement of the trial of the applicant until completion of the courthouse at Litchfield would have deprived him of that speedy trial guaranteed to him by the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the state of Connecticut. Following the conclusion of the trial and the passing of sentence upon him, the accused. November 19, 1929, by his attorneys, gave notice of appeal, and filed a draft of a proposed finding. On December 2, 1929, the state's attorney filed his request for a counter finding; and December 10, 1929, the judge of the court filed his finding, a copy of which is annexed to and made a part of the answer. Since that time, no steps have been taken to perfect the appeal.

To this reply of the respondent, the applicant demurred, and the substance of his demurrer is that section 2 of chapter 232 of the Public Acts of 1929 (appended in the footnote^[1]), providing for civil and criminal terms and sessions of the Superior Court, requires that the sessions for criminal business on the first Tuesday of September, January, April, and June be held at Litchfield, and that the judge holding the session had no power or authority to open court at Litchfield and then adjourn to Winchester in that county, and there continue the session, and that the judgment of the superior court is void because the court was held at Winchester and not at Litchfield as provided by law.

Upon stipulation of the parties, the cause was reserved for the advice of this court, and the questions propounded, so far as necessary to be noticed, are as follows: (a) What disposition should the trial court make of the demurrer to the reply? (b) Did the court have jurisdiction to hold a session for the transaction of criminal business at any other place than the town of Litchfield in the county of Litchfield? (c) Under the circumstances shown by the finding, and under the law, was the September, 1929, session of the superior court legally held at Winsted?

From the allegations of the second defense of the reply, it appears that on the first Tuesday of September, 1929, at the time the session for the transaction of civil or criminal business was fixed by statute to open, the county courthouse and the superior court room therein at Litchfield were unusable for the purpose of holding court because of extensive repairs then being made, which condition continued to December 10, 1929. It is further alleged that there were no suitable places obtainable in the town of Litchfield for the purpose of holding criminal sessions of the superior court, and that at Winsted there was a superior court room regularly...