Laffin v. Apalucci

Decision Date04 June 1943
Citation130 Conn. 153,32 A.2d 648
CourtConnecticut Supreme Court
PartiesLAFFIN v. APALUCCI et al.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, New Haven County; Wall, Judge.

Action by Charles Laffin against Nicholas Apalucci and others for assault and battery, brought to the Court of Common Pleas and tried to the jury. From a verdict and judgment for the defendants, plaintiff appeals.

No error.

Andrew D. Dawson, of Waterbury, for appellant.

William B. Hennessy and John F. Tobin, of Waterbury, for appellees.

Before MALTBIE, C. J., and BROWN, JENNINGS, ELLS, and DICKENSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

In view of the full statement of facts in the previous opinion in this case (128 Conn. 654, 25 A.2d 60) a brief summary here will suffice. The plaintiff was a customer on the premises of the defendants Apalucci and Lucien, who ran a bar and restaurant in two adjoining rooms. The defendant Sacco was the bartender. The plaintiff claimed that Sacco committed an unprovoked assault on him in the barroom. The defendants claimed that the plaintiff followed Sacco from the bar into the restaurant, that he there assaulted him and that Sacco then struck the plaintiff in self-defense. The plaintiff claims the charge was incorrect in three particulars.

The first assignment of error relates to the charge concerning a statement made by counsel during the argument to the jury. There is no basis in the finding by which the correctness of this portion of the charge can be tested. Since the charge must be tested by the finding, this assignment is without merit. Hulk v. Aishberg, 126 Conn. 360, 362, 11 A.2d 380.

The error in the former trial was based on the fact that the charge made recovery depend rather on the place where the affray took place than on the circumstances surrounding it. In this case substantially the same charge on this subject was repeated but it was qualified by the statement: ‘But, regardless of where the fracas took place, the real question is, was the blow struck by Sacco justifiable, and was it, as the Answer states, in self-defense. * * *’ Earlier in the charge, the trial court stated: ‘While the place where this all took place has a bearing on the credit you will give testimony, the really important matter is, however, how it happened, rather than the place where it happened.’ The determination of the place where the affray occurred was important on the question of credibility of witnesses and a proper subject of comment. The explanatory and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Brown v. Robishaw
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • June 5, 2007
    ...v. Michael, 188 Conn. 607, 610, 452 A.2d 1157 (1982); Hanauer v. Coscia, 157 Conn. 49, 51, 244 A.2d 611 (1968); Laffin v. Apalucci, 130 Conn. 153, 154, 32 A.2d 648 (1943). Moreover, although the specific issue of whether the special defense of self-defense is available in an action wherein ......
  • Hanauer v. Coscia
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • July 16, 1968
    ...belief actually existed if, in resorting to self-defense, he reasonably believed in the existence of such a danger. Laffin v. Apalucci, 130 Conn. 153, 155, 32 A.2d 648; 6 Am.Jur.2d 135, Assault and Battery, § 161. The permissible degree of force used in self-defense depends on that which is......

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