State v. Anonymous (1971-17)

• Court: Connecticut Superior Court
• Citation: State v. Anonymous (1971-17), 279 A.2d 738, 6 Conn.Cir.Ct. 560 (Conn. Super. 1971)
• Decision Date: 01 January 1971

Page 738

279 A.2d 738

6 Conn.Cir.Ct. 560

STATE of Connecticut v. ANONYMOUS (1971-17).

Circuit Court of Connecticut.

DiCENZO, Judge.

From his conviction of the crime of speeding (General Statutes § 14-219(a)(2)) in a trial to the jury, the defendant has appealed, assigning error in the denial of his motion for disclosure and production, in the denial of his motion to set aside the verdict, and in the admission of certain evidence. The first of the claimed errors is alleged to be apparent on the face of the record.

A summons issued to the defendant, setting forth that he was charged with the crime of speeding, contained the following writing: 'Speeding-80 mph in 60 mph zone-radar 14-219a2.' The defendant was directed to appear in the Circuit Court.

An examination of the record and transcript of the proceedings in the Circuit Court discloses that the court directed that the defendant's not guilty plea be withdrawn and that the defendant file a motion, whereupon the plea was withdrawn and the case continued. The defendant thereafter filed a motion entitled 'motion for disclosure and production.' This motion is a part of the record and was filed pursuant to §§ 167 through 171 of the Practice Book, which provide for disclosure in civil actions, the answering of interrogatories and the production of physical objects. Section 468 of the Practice Book makes the rules in civil actions applicable to criminal cases so far as they are adapted to such proceedings.

The defendant's motion for disclosure to obtain answers to a number of questions relating to facts within the exclusive knowledge of the state and not available to the defendant-more particularly, the location of the radar, the location of the visual indicator and graph recorder, the identifying number of the radar equipment used, the name and address of the manufacturer of the radar equipment used, when the radar equipment was obtained by the state police, whether it was an electronic device, and whether there was compliance with the federal communications regulations regarding the use of such equipment. The motion also sought the production of pertinent records as well as the radar graph.

The state objected to the motion on the ground that a motion for disclosure is not available to a defendant in a criminal case. The motion was heard by the court and denied with no memorandum.

Irrespective of whether the title of the motion was correct, the motion sought certain information considered necessary by the defendant in the preparation of his defense. The rulings on a motion of this nature are within the sound discretion of the court. Graham v. Houlihan, 147 Conn. 321, 331, 160 A.2d 745; Kiessling v. Kiessling, 134 Conn. 564, 568, 59 A.2d 532. In State v. Hayes, 6 Conn.Sup. 243, 245, it was stated: 'Certainly the modern trend of authorities in this country is to hold that it is discretionary with the Court in a criminal case to allow an inspection of documents or other articles in the possession of the state's attorney and that that discretion ought to be exercised in favor of the accused when the documents sought are the very subject of the charge and admissible in evidence, and it is necessary for a fair presentation of the case on trial that the accused inspect them in advance of the trial.'

The defendant claims that he was hampered in the preparation and presentation of his case by the complete denial of his motion.

An accused 'should be permitted to inspect documents or articles which form the basis of the charge against him, and even in the absence of statute or rule of procedure cou...