State v. Amendola
| Decision Date | 10 November 1964 |
| Citation | 152 Conn. 166,204 A.2d 836 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Salvatore AMENDOLA. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
William J. Singer, Hartford, with whom, on the brief, was Louis F. Chrostowski, Hartford, for appellant (defendant).
Harry W. Hultgren, Jr., Asst. State's Atty., with whom, on the brief, were John D. LaBelle, State's Atty., and George D. Stoughton, Asst. State's Atty., for appellee (state).
Before KING, C. J., and MURPHY, ALCORN, COMLEY and SHANNON, JJ.
The defendant appeals from his conviction by a jury of conspiring with four other defendants to commit the crime of pool selling in violation of General Statutes, §§ 54-197 and 53-295. He was also found guilty of pool selling under the second count of the information, and he pleaded guilty to being a second offender as charged in the second part of the information.
In his brief he pursues three assignments of error. The first relates to the denial of his motion to separate the trial of issues arising out of an incident claimed by the state to have occurred on January 11, 1963, from the trial of other issues arising out of a separate and distinct incident, not involving him, which was claimed by the state to have occurred on January 18, 1963. Whether separate trials should be allowed rests in the sound discretion of the trial court. State v. Taborsky, 147 Conn. 194, 198, 158 A.2d 239; State v. McCarthy, 133 Conn. 171, 174, 49 A.2d 594; State v. Castelli, 92 Conn. 58, 62, 101 A. 476. There is nothing in the record of this case to show an abuse of that discretion.
The second assignment of error pursued in the defendant's brief raises the claims that the search warrant used by the police on January 11, 1963, was defective and that the search made on that day was unreasonable. The court found that the warrant was actually issued by a judge of the Circuit Court on January 10, 1963, although it was dated December 11, 1963. This date obviously was a clerical error, and it resulted in no prejudice to the defendant. The search was in fact made on the day after the warrant was issued. We cannot disturb the court's conclusion that there was no unreasonable delay in the execution of the warrant. See State v. Cesero, 146 Conn. 375, 379, 151 A.2d 338.
The defendant's final assignment of error is based on the denial of his motion for a directed verdict. The state insists that such a ruling affords no ground for appeal and cites State v. Murphy, 124 Conn. 554, 567, 1 A.2d 274, State v. Fasano, 119 Conn. 455, 459, 177 A. 376, and State v. Boucher, 119 Conn. 436, 437, 177 A. 383. The rule of these cases was supplanted by Practice Book, 1951, § 377, which was in effect when this appeal was taken and which expressly provided that '[i]f a party is aggrieved by the decision of the court or judge upon any question or questions of law arising in the trial, including the denial of a motion to direct * * * a verdict * * *, he may appeal from the final judgment of the court or of such judge.' Here, the defendant did appeal from the final judgment, assigning as error the denial of his motion for a directed verdict. Thus, the ruling is before us for review.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Birnbaum v. Ives
... ... [163 Conn. 14] HOUSE, Chief Justice ... On March 21, 1966, the state, through the defendant highway commissioner, acquired, ... by condemnation, land and a structure thereon located on the easterly side of Washington ... ...
-
State v. Schindler
...305, cert. denied, 380 U.S. 943, 85 S.Ct. 1025, 13 L.Ed.2d 962; State v. Salvaggio, 152 Conn. 716, 717, 210 A.2d 175; State v. Amendola, 152 Conn. 166, 168, 204 A.2d 836. From the evidence presented, the jury could have found the following facts: On July 16, 1965, Bonnie Barile of 51 Judson......
-
State v. Kearney
...have been kept in the dark by the state's failure to bring that evidence, or a statement of it, properly before us.' State v. Amendola, 152 Conn. 166, 168, 204 A.2d 836, 838. Under the circumstances, a new trial must be Our decision on the merits of this single assignment of error is, of co......
-
State v. Church
...for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Such rulings are reviewed on the evidence alone and not on the finding. State v. Amendola, 152 Conn. 166, 168, 204 A.2d 836; Kingston v. Blake, 151 Conn. 714, 715, 201 A.2d 460. While we have reviewed the evidence, the defendant's basic contention i......