State v. Anonymous (1971-15)
Decision Date | 01 January 1971 |
Citation | 278 A.2d 827,6 Conn.Cir.Ct. 549 |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
These defendants stand convicted, after a jury trial, on the first count of substituted informations charging them with the crime of breach of the peace in violation of § 53-174 of the General Statutes. 1
In the view we take of these cases, it is necessary for us to consider only the defendants' contention that the trial court failed to limit its instructions to the jury to the specific acts alleged in the substituted informations.
In one case, the state charged that the defendant In the other case, the state alleged that the defendant 2
'The term 'breach of the peace' has never had a precise meaning in relation to specific conduct.' United States v. Woodward, 7 Civ., 376 F.2d 136, 141. Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 308, 60 S.Ct. 900, 905, 84 L.Ed. 1213. Our breach of the peace statute is not 'narrowly drawn to define and punish specific conduct'; id., 311, 60 S.Ct. 906; our statute is a long, difficult and involved sentence containing 110 words. Ordinarily, it would have been sufficient had the state charged the offense in the language of the statute; see Practice Book § 493; State v. Criscuolo, 159 Conn. 175, 177, 268 A.2d 374; but the state chose to particularize the manner in which the offense was committed. In so doing the state limited itself to the proof of the violation substantially in the manner described. State v. DiLorenzo, 138 Conn. 281, 284, 83 A.2d 479; State v. Scott, 80 Conn. 317, 321, 68 A. 258.
Quednau v. Langrish, 144 Conn. 706, 714, 137 A.2d 544, 549. In short, 'Brevity in instructions is desirable.' 88 C.J.S. Trial § 335 p. 876. Instructions are not to be legal treatises for the sue of the legal profession but should enlighten and not confuse jurors unskilled in the law and unversed in legal phraseology. Elliott v. Capital City State Bank, 149 Iowa 309, 319, 128 N.W. 369.
The court in its charge to the jury read practically all of the language of General Statutes § 53-174, except the portion dealing with criminal libel. The charge failed to explain the statute in language 'easily understandable to the lay jury.' Stryzinski v. Arnold, 285 App.Div. 780, 783, 141 N.Y.S.2d 11, 14, (N.Y.). The charge also contained extracts from an opinion of the United States Supreme Court. See Cantwell v. Connecticut, supra. 'It is seldom that extracts of that nature are adapted for use in instructing a jury'; Allen v. Lyness, 81 Conn. 626, 629, 71 A. 936, 937; 'and that is emphatically true of the present.' Radwick v. Goldstein, 90 Conn. 701, 707, 98 A. 583, 585; 23A C.J.S. Criminal Law § 1192a p. 490. 'Statements in the opinions of * * * court serve a very different purpose than a charge to the jury. Film v. Downing & Perkins, Inc., 135 Conn. 524, 527, 66 A.2d 613, 614. The fact that the language used in a charge is a direct quotation from an opinion of an appellate court or from a statute will not save an unclear charge. Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co. v.,201 East 18th Street Corporation, 256 App.Div. 1077, 11 N.Y.S.2d 65 (N.Y.). The instructions as given in the cases at bar went beyond the specifications in the substituted informations and beyond the evidence.
We recognize the fact that the trial of these cases was unusually long and protracted by reason of the fact that they were tried together with eight other defendants; nevertheless, broad general statements are inadequate for the guidance of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Edwards v. Code Enforcement Committee of Town of Vernon
...expression is an equivocal connective, being neither positively conjunctive nor positively disjunctive." State v. Anonymous (1971-15), 6 Conn.Cir.Ct. 549, 550 n. 2, 278 A.2d 827 (1971); see also Mack v. Perzanowski, 172 Conn. 310, 314-15, 374 A.2d 236 (1977).It is axiomatic that the parties......
-
Common Condominium Associations, Inc. v. Common Associates
...technical.3 We note in passing that the use of conjunctive-disjunctive "and/or" in pleadings is deplored. State v. Anonymous (1971-15), 6 Conn.Cir.Ct. 549, 550, 278 A.2d 827 (1971). ...
-
State v. Smith
...court on the breach of the peace statute (General Statutes § 53-174), and in view of the decision of this court in State v. Anonymous (1971-15), 6 Conn.Cir. 549, 278 A.2d 827, it is ordered that, in the appeal from the Circuit Court in the fourteenth circuit, the judgment be, and hereby is,......
-
State v. Anonymous, (1971-14)
...accused person or the state, aggrieved by an order of the circuit court concerning release, may petition the appellate division of [6 Conn.Cir.Ct. 549] the circuit court for review of such order. * * * Any such petition shall have precedence over any other matters before said appellate divi......