State v. Anonymous
| Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
| Writing for the Court | Before COTTER; WRIGHT |
| Citation | 427 A.2d 403,179 Conn. 516 |
| Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. ANONYMOUS * . |
| Decision Date | 29 January 1980 |
Page 403
v.
ANONYMOUS *.
Decided Jan. 29, 1980.
Page 404
[179 Conn. 517] Gerard A. Smyth, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant (defendant).
Irving L. Aronson, Deputy Asst. State's Atty., with whom, on the brief, was Mary-Anne Ziewacz, law student intern, for appellee (state).
Before [179 Conn. 516] COTTER, C. J., and LOISELLE, BOGDANSKI, PETERS and WRIGHT, JJ.
[179 Conn. 517] WRIGHT, Associate Justice.
After a trial to the court, the defendant was found guilty as a youthful offender on the charge of carrying a dangerous weapon without a permit, in violation of § 53-206 of the General Statutes. 1
[179 Conn. 518] The conviction was affirmed by the Appellate Session of the Superior Court. The defendant has come before this court on certification from the Appellate Session.
The main issue to be determined at this juncture is whether the burden is upon the state to prove the lack of a permit, or whether the requirement of having a permit is an affirmative defense, to be pleaded and proved by the defendant.
There is no material conflict as to the basic facts. On July 20, 1977, at 9:30 p. m., two Hartford police officers set up surveillance outside a two-family residence of three floors. After approximately forty-five minutes one of the officers identified the defendant on the roof of the dwelling. The officer testified that he saw the defendant carrying a shotgun or rifle. Additional police units were summoned. Upon the arrival of the additional police units, the officer entered the building under surveillance and arrested the defendant. Others were also arrested. Another officer searched the roof of the building and found two sawed-off shotguns, one long-barreled shotgun, a large bayonet and two Molotov cocktails. The shotguns were loaded.
In affirming the decision of the trial court, the Appellate Session ruled that the phrase "unless such person has been granted a written permit" [179 Conn. 519] was not a constituent part of the offense, but was merely an
Page 405
exception. State v. Nathan, 138 Conn. 485, 489, 86 A.2d 322 (1952). The Appellate Session cited Commonwealth v. Stoffan, 228 Pa.Super. 127, 323 A.2d 318, 325 (1974), for the proposition that "where the exception merely furnishes an excuse for what would otherwise be criminal conduct, the duty devolves upon the defendant to bring himself within the exculpatory provision."The defendant, on the other hand, urges that the essence of the crime is not the carrying of a dangerous weapon, but rather the carrying of a dangerous weapon without a permit. The defendant argues that without proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he did not possess a permit, a finding of guilty is improper. He cites the constitutional right to bear arms; Conn.Const. art. 1 § 15; U.S.Const.Amend. II; and stresses that carrying a weapon is not criminal per se, but only becomes criminal if the weapon is carried without a proper permit. We agree.
Our decision on this issue is premised on a fundamental principle of our law. The burden in a criminal case is placed squarely...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Gibbs
...is no burden on the defendant to prove his innocence. State v. Gabriel, 192 Conn. 405, 413, 473 A.2d 300 (1984); State v. Anonymous, 179 Conn. 516, 519, 427 A.2d 403 (1980); State v. Jackson, 176 Conn. 257, 258, 407 A.2d 948 (1978); see Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684, 699-701, 95 S. Ct. 1......
-
Daw's Critical Care Registry, Inc. v. Department of Labor, Employment Sec. Div., Nos. CV-88-029573
...its purpose. See also Furber v. Administrator, 164 Conn. 446, 454, 324 A.2d 254 (1973)." F.A.S. International, Inc. v. Reilly, supra, 179 Conn. at 516, 427 A.2d 392. Under all the circumstances this court concludes, even after extending the deference to be accorded the decision of the defen......
-
State v. Hart, No. 14230
...an essential element of the crime, and the state must plead and prove that the defendant is not within the exception. State v. Anonymous, 179 Conn. 516, 519-20, 427 A.2d 403 (1980); State v. Beauton, 170 Conn. 234, 240, 365 A.2d 1105 (1976). Where an exception to a prohibition is situated s......
-
State v. Gabriel
...25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970); see Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. [192 Conn. 414] 684, 95 S.Ct. 1881, 44 L.Ed.2d 508 (1975); State v. Anonymous, 179 Conn. 516, 519, 427 A.2d 403 (1980); State v. Griffin, 175 Conn. 155, 162, 397 A.2d 89 (1978); 1 Wharton, Criminal Evidence (13th Ed.) § 10. It cannot b......
-
State v. Gibbs
...is no burden on the defendant to prove his innocence. State v. Gabriel, 192 Conn. 405, 413, 473 A.2d 300 (1984); State v. Anonymous, 179 Conn. 516, 519, 427 A.2d 403 (1980); State v. Jackson, 176 Conn. 257, 258, 407 A.2d 948 (1978); see Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684, 699-701, 95 S. Ct. 1......
-
Daw's Critical Care Registry, Inc. v. Department of Labor, Employment Sec. Div., Nos. CV-88-029573
...its purpose. See also Furber v. Administrator, 164 Conn. 446, 454, 324 A.2d 254 (1973)." F.A.S. International, Inc. v. Reilly, supra, 179 Conn. at 516, 427 A.2d 392. Under all the circumstances this court concludes, even after extending the deference to be accorded the decision of the defen......
-
State v. Hart, No. 14230
...an essential element of the crime, and the state must plead and prove that the defendant is not within the exception. State v. Anonymous, 179 Conn. 516, 519-20, 427 A.2d 403 (1980); State v. Beauton, 170 Conn. 234, 240, 365 A.2d 1105 (1976). Where an exception to a prohibition is situated s......
-
State v. Gabriel
...25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970); see Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. [192 Conn. 414] 684, 95 S.Ct. 1881, 44 L.Ed.2d 508 (1975); State v. Anonymous, 179 Conn. 516, 519, 427 A.2d 403 (1980); State v. Griffin, 175 Conn. 155, 162, 397 A.2d 89 (1978); 1 Wharton, Criminal Evidence (13th Ed.) § 10. It cannot b......