Sims v. Smith
| Citation | 161 A. 239,115 Conn. 279 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
| Decision Date | 05 July 1932 |
| Parties | SIMS v. SMITH. |
Appeal from Superior Court, New London County; Carl Foster, Judge.
Action by Narcissa M. Sims, administratrix, against Nelson S. Smith to recover damages for the death of plaintiff's intestate alleged to have been caused by the unlawful act of the defendant. Plaintiff recovered verdict and judgment, and defendant appeals.
Error and new trial ordered.
Arrest by peace officer for felony without warrant is illegal unless officer has reasonable ground to believe that he has received speedy information of commission of crime. Gen.St.1930, § 239 (Rev.1949, § 465).
Morris Lubchansky and Russell H. Corcoran, both of New London, for appellant.
Thomas M. Shields, of Norwich, for appellee.
Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HAINES, HINMAN, BANKS, and AVERY JJ.
The defendant, a police officer of the city of New London, shot and killed plaintiff's intestate while the latter was attempting to escape from his custody after having been placed under arrest. He assigns error in the court's charge as to the law controlling the legality of his arrest of the plaintiff's intestate. To test the correctness of the charge upon this point, it is necessary to consider only certain facts which, from the finding of the evidence offered by both parties, appear to be undisputed. The defendant arrested Sims, the plaintiff's intestate, upon the complaint of one Burhoe that Sims had committed adultery with Burhoe's wife. Sims resisted arrest, wrenched himself free from the defendant, and fied into an alley. The defendant fired several shots at him, one of which struck him causing his death. The defendant had no warrant for the arrest of Sims for adultery, but claimed that he had arrested him on speedy information, that he had the right to arrest him upon such information without a warrant, and was justified in shooting him since he was resisting and attempting to escape from a legal arrest. The court charged the jury that, if they found that the defendant was justified in believing that he had speedy information of the commission of adultery by Sims, he was justified in arresting him for that act without a warrant, and was further justified in shooting him since he was resisting and attempting to escape from a legal arrest. The court charged the jury that, if they found that the defendant was justified in believing that he had speedy information of the commission of adultery by Sims if the latter was fleeing from arrest for such felony. Conversely the court charged that, if the defendant did not have reasonable ground for belief that he had received speedy information that Sims had committed adultery, he had no legal right to arrest him for that crime without a warrant, and in that event was not legally justified in shooting and killing Sims while the latter was fleeing from such arrest. The defendant assigns error in this portion of the charge, and in the failure of the court to charge that a peace officer has the right to arrest without a warrant one whom he had probable ground to suspect of having committed a felony, even though the information was not imparted to him speedily after the felony was committed. The defendant did not request the court to so charge; the request being to the effect that he had the right to arrest without a warrant any person suspected of having committed a felony on the speedy information of others. The defendant's claim upon the trial was that, in making the arrest, he had acted upon speedy information, and that the arrest was therefore legal. His present claim is that a peace officer may arrest without a warrant for a felony committed at any time in the past. The claim of error now made is without merit. It is generally held, it is true, that at common law a peace officer could arrest without a warrant one whom he had reasonable ground to believe had committed a felony, through no felony had in fact been committed, and that there was no requirement that information of the crime must have been received speedily after its commission. The rule is otherwise in this state by statute. Gen. St. § 239, provides that police officers and other peace officials " in their respective precinets, shall arrest, without previous complaint and warrant, any person for any offense in their jurisdiction, when the offender shall be taken or apprehended in the act or on the speedy information of others; and all persons so arrested shall be immediately presented before proper authority." The defendant contends that the history of this legislation indicates that it was not the intention of the Legislature to limit the common-law right of arrest without a warrant. In the Revision of 1821, p. 122, it was provided: " That constables shall have power *** without warrant to apprehend such as are guilty of profane swearing, drunkenness or Sabbath breaking *** provided they be taken or apprehended in the act, or on the present information of others." In 1867 this was amended to include certain other and different misdemeanors. At common law an officer could arrest without a warrant for certain misdemeanors, but only when they had been committed in his presence, and this legislation extended that right to cases when the arrest was made on speedy information. Except for changes not here material, the statute took its present form in 1875, Revision of 1875, p. 34, tit. 3, c. 4, pt. 5. The statute then enacted and now in force makes no distinction between misdemeanors and felonies, but defines and prescribes the limitations upon peace officers in making arrests without a warrant " for any offense." We fail to find in the history of this legislation any indication that the legislative intent, in the enactment of this statute, was other than that which is apparent upon its face; on the contrary, the change in the language clearly indicates an intention to broaden the provision requiring that arrest without a warrant should be upon speedy information, unless the offender is taken in the act, To cover not only misdemeanors, but any offenses, including felonies. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Traub
...right to arrest without a warrant is regulated by statutory provision, such an arrest except as authorized is illegal. Sims v. Smith, 115 Conn. 279, 284, 161 A. 239. Section 6-49 does not authorize an arrest on mere suspicion. State v. DelVecchio, 149 Conn. 567, 575, 182 A.2d 402; State v. ......
-
State v. White, s. 13941
...policy when it weighed that liberty against the possibility that some guilty person might escape." Id.; see also Sims v. Smith, 115 Conn. 279, 281-83, 161 A. 239 (1932). Our article first, § 9 jurisprudence was further developed in State v. Lamme, supra, 216 Conn. at 172, 579 A.2d 484. In L......
-
State v. Mobley
...of arrest without warrant is regulated by statute, an arrest without warrant except as authorized by statute is illegal. Sims v. Smith, 115 Conn. 279, 161 A. 239; State v. Bradshaw, 53 Mont. 96, 161 P. 710; State v. De Hart, N.J.Com.Pl., 129 A. 427; Mazzolini v. Gifford, 90 Vt. 352, 98 A. 9......
-
State v. Gallagher
...the person is taken or apprehended in the act or on the speedy information of others." The defendant argues, citing Sims v. Smith, 115 Conn. 279, 283, 161 A. 239 (1932), that arrests are permitted by this statute only where there is no opportunity to obtain an arrest warrant. The defendant ......