State v. Annunziato
| Decision Date | 06 March 1958 |
| Citation | 145 Conn. 124,139 A.2d 612 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Salvatore ANNUNZIATO et al. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
Louis Feinmark, New Haven, for appellant (named defendant).
Alfonse C. Fasano, New Haven, for appellant (defendant Miller).
Arthur T. Gorman, Asst. State's Atty., New Haven, with whom, on the brief, was Abraham S. Ullman, State's Atty., New Haven, for the appellee (state).
Before WYNNE, C. J., and BALDWIN, DALY, KING and MURPHY, JJ.
The defendants Annunziato and Miller and four other men were, on August 18, 1955, informed against in an information, filed in the Superior Court in New Haven County, charging them with having committed the crime of conspiracy in the town of Branford on or about July 23, 1955, and were arrested upon a bench warrant issued on August 18, 1955, by a judge of the Superior Court. On January 5, 1956, a second count, charging breach of the peace, and a third count, alleging wilful injury to and destruction of personal property of others, were added to the information. After a trial on the second and third counts, the court found Annunziato and Miller guilty on both of those counts. Each of them has appealed from the judgment.
On July 23, 1955, the defendant Miller had been charged with the crime of aggravated assault, alleged to have been committed in the town of Branford on that date, and had been arrested by police officers of that town. He had posted a bail bond and was awaiting trial in the town court of Branford at the time of his arrest upon the bench warrant issued on August 18, 1955. Before the charge of aggravated assault was disposed of in the town court, and after Miller filed a motion for a more specific statement in the Superior Court, the state's attorney stated that he would add two counts to the information and would not press the count charging conspiracy. The aggravated assault charged in the information upon which Miller was awaiting trial in the town court was the same assault as was alleged in the second count of the information filed in the Superior Court on January 5, 1956. On January 6, Miller filed a plea to the jurisdiction challenging the jurisdiction of the Superior Court. In and by his plea, he alleged that by a special act the Town Court of Branford, established in 1897, had exclusive jurisdiction of the offenses alleged in the information to have been perpetrated by him. The special act provided that '[t]here is hereby established within and for the town of Branford a court, to be styled and called the Town Court of Branford, which shall have jurisdiction and cognizance of all crimes and misdemeanors committed within said town,' and that '[s]aid town court shall have exclusive cognizance of and hear all complaints for criminal offenses committed within said town of Branford, which shall be brought before said town court.' 12 Spec.Laws 955, No. 304, §§ 1, 2. The court overruled the plea to the jurisdiction. In his assignment of errors Miller alleged that the court erred in doing so.
In 1939, the General Assembly passed an act entitled 'Minor Courts.' General Statutes, Cum.Sup.1939, §§ 1361e-1370e. In Lake Garda Co. v. LeWitt, 126 Conn. 588, 592, 593, 13 A.2d 510, 512, we said:
Section 7579 of the General Statutes provides, as do § 2331c of the 1953 Cumulative Supplement and § 3096d of the 1955 Cumulative Supplement, that, in any town, city, borough or district having a population of less than 15,000 as determined by the last federal census, '[a]ny municipal court having criminal jurisdiction shall have jurisdiction of all crimes and misdemeanors committed within the territorial limits of such town, city, borough or district * * * and shall have final jurisdiction, subject to appeal, of all crimes wherein the penalty provided shall not exceed a fine of two hundred and fifty dollars or imprisonment for six months or both,' and that '[t]he jurisdiction provided for in section 8733 is conferred upon all municipal courts having criminal jurisdiction.' The population of the town of Branford as determined by the last federal census was 10,944. Conn.Reg. & Manual, pp. 300, 301 (1957). The maximum penalty provided for conspiracy by § 8876 of the General Statutes, which was in effect on August 18, 1955, when the bench warrant ordering Miller's arrest for the alleged commission of that crime was issued, was a fine of $5000 or imprisonment of fifteen years or both. The maximum penalty for breach of the peace is a fine of $500 or imprisonment of one year or both. § 8518. The maximum penalty for wilful injury to or destruction of the personal property of another is a fine of $100 or imprisonment for six months or both. § 8463. Section 8733 provides that '[i]n a prosecution for any crime the punishment for which shall be a fine of not more than one thousand dollars or imprisonment for not more than five years or both, any municipal court may take final jurisdiction thereof, whenever, upon conviction, the court shall determine that no greater punishment ought to be imposed than that which it may lawfully inflict.'
It will be noted that, like § 1361e of the 1939 Cumulative Supplement, a part of the original Minor Courts Act, neither the applicable portion of § 3096d nor § 8733 provides that the municipal courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction. Furthermore, as provided by § 8743, '[t]he superior court shall also have concurrent jurisdiction of any offense which is within the jurisdiction * * * of any municipal court,' and, as provided by § 8764, '[a]n original information may be filed in the superior court against any person accused of crime in any case in which an inferior court may, at its discretion, punish him or bind him over for trial, and in any other case upon the order of the superior court.' The Superior Court had exclusive jurisdiction of the crime of conspiracy charged in the first count of the amended information. It had jurisdiction of the other offenses--breach of the peace and wilful injury to or destruction of property of another--alleged in the second and third counts, since exclusive jurisdiction of these crimes is not given to some other court. State v. Chin Lung, 106 Conn. 701, 719, 139 A. 91. The trial court did not err in overruling the defendant Miller's plea to the jurisdiction.
Each defendant contends that the court erred in finding certain facts which he asserts were found without evidence. These claims are futile. The challenged facts are amply justified by the evidence. Each of the defendants maintains, also, that the court erred in refusing to find certain other facts which he claims were admitted or undisputed. A fact is not an admitted or undisputed fact because the witness who testified to it has not been contradicted. The acceptance or rejection of testimony is a matter for the trial court. Nixon v. Gniazdowski, 145 Conn. 46, 48, 138 A.2d 796; Practice Book, § 397. The finding, as made, must stand.
The court found the following facts: Double Beach in the town of Branford is a summer resort consisting of beaches, bathhouses, refreshment stands, cottages, and a restaurant and bar known as the Double Beach House. The Double Beach House faces east with a large dining room in the southeasterly portion of the building, a bar in the northeasterly portion, and a kitchen immediately to the rear of both rooms. There is a large parking area north of the building. On July 23, 1955, Alfred Hansen and Jeff Davis, Sr., were the proprietors of the Double Beach House.
The defendant Annunziato had been at the Double Beach House with various persons two or three times during the week ending on Saturday, July 23, 1955. On those occasions his relationship with the proprietors and their employees had been amicable and free from trouble. During the early part of the afternoon of July 23, he had been at his home in East Haven with Michael Coppola and one Verderame. At about 3:30 p. m., Annunziato and Coppola arrived at the Double Beach House, having been driven there by Verderame. Upon entering the building, Annunziato and Coppola seated themselves at a table in the northeasterly corner of the barroom. They were served liquor and coffee at that table from time to time by a waitress. Shortly after 7 p. m., the night shift of waitresses relieved her and other waitresses in the barroom. At that time Annunziato became very loud and objectionable to other customers in the barroom. Then a small boy, who was with a party seated in the barroom, wandered over to Annunziato's table and Annunziato ordered a soft drink for him. The father of the boy recalled him to his table, whereupon...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Little
...State v. Kelsey, 160 Conn. 551, 553, 274 A.2d 151 [1970]; State v. Reid, 154 Conn. 37, 40, 221 A.2d 258 [1966]; State v. Annunziato, 145 Conn. 124, 136, 139 A.2d 612 [1958].' State v. Mayell, [163 Conn. 419, 427-28, 311 A.2d 60 (1972) ]." State v. Payne, 186 Conn. 179, 184, 440 A.2d 280 (19......
-
State v. Williams
...State v. Kelsey, 160 Conn. 551, 553, 274 A.2d 151 [1970]; State v. Reid, 154 Conn. 37, 40, 221 A.2d 258 [1966]; State v. Annunziato, 145 Conn. 124, 136, 139 A.2d 612 [1958]." State v. Mayell, [163 Conn. 419, 427-28, 311 A.2d 60 (1972) ].' State v. Payne, 186 Conn. 179, 184, 440 A.2d 280 (19......
-
State v. Cari
...guilt and inconsistent with any other rational conclusion.' State v. Foord, 142 Conn. 285, 295, 113 A.2d 591, 596; State v. Annunziato, 145 Conn. 124, 136, 139 A.2d 612.' State v. Reid, 154 Conn. 37, 40, 221 A.2d 258, 259.' In that case the decisive question was whether the identification o......
-
State v. Benton
...doubt excludes every reasonable supposition of innocence. State v. Smith, 156 Conn. 378, 382, 242 A.2d 763; State v. Annunziato, 145 Conn. 124, 136, 139 A.2d 612; State v. Smith, 138 Conn. 196, 200, 201, 82 A.2d 816; State v. McDonough, 129 Conn. 483, 485, 29 A.2d 582. A conviction of break......