State v. Audet
Citation | 365 A.2d 1082,170 Conn. 337 |
Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
Decision Date | 16 March 1976 |
Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Gary AUDET. |
Walter H. Scanlon, Jr., Asst. State's Atty., for appellant (state).
John P. McKeon, Hartford, for appellee (defendant).
Before HOUSE, C.J., and LOISELLE, BOGDANSKI, LONGO and BARBER, JJ.
The information in this case charged the defendant with one count of manslaughter in the first degree and four counts of assault in the first degree. The state's brief claims that evidence was produced in the course of the trial that the defendant and a friend went to a restaurant where an argument ensued with another. The defendant left the restaurant, went to his motor vehicle for a loaded revolver, returned to the restaurant and fired six shots. One of the shots hit a girl, killing her, and four of the remaining shots wounded four other people, one of whom lost his right leg as a result of injuries suffered by that wound. The defendant's brief does not allude to any evidence presented but is limited to arguments of law.
After a jury had found the defendant guilty of manslaughter in the second degree and reported that it could not agree on four counts of assault in the first degree, the court dismissed the latter four counts. The court denied the state permission to appeal the dismissal of the four counts. The state, without the court's permission, has appealed the dismissal of these four counts. The defendant has moved for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. If the defendant's motion is granted then the state requests consideration of its motion for review of the court's order denying the state permission to appeal.
There is no finding. The matter involved, however, does not relate to facts which were at issue during the course of the trial but to the doings of the court after the trial and prior to sentencing. Consequently, resort may be made to the transcript of the proceedings at the time of dismissal. When the case came up for sentencing, the court inquired about the state's plan as to 'those four other charges.' The assistant state's attorney replied, 'We will proceed to trial on them.' The court then stated, The assistant state's attorney: The court:
After a recess and upon reconvening there was further colloquy between the court and counsel as to the court considering 'the whole picture in sentencing.' The matter of dismissing the four pending counts was brought up by defense counsel and there was some discussion off the record. A motion was then made to dismiss the four remaining counts by virtue of the 'broad powers under § 54-56 of the Connecticut General Statutes.' After some colloquy the court stated:
After another recess the case came up again, the state asked for a continuance and the defendant protested. The court asked counsel for the defendant 'whether or not the finding of guilty of manslaughter in the second degree is to be considered a final verdict or is to be appealed?' Both counsel and accused told the court there would be no appeal from the sentencing on the manslaughter charge. Thereafter the court stated that as there was a leeway of up to ten years under the finding of manslaughter in the second degree and that it would 'assess the whole case in passing sentence,' the motion to dismiss the four counts pending was granted.
The assistant state's attorney expressed his fears that the sentence would be tainted by the court's consideration of the charges which the jury could not agree on. Defense counsel and the accused stated they would not instigate any writ of habeas corpus. The court then stated,
The state then asked for permission under General Statutes § 54-96 to appeal the ruling on the defendant's motion to dismiss the four counts on which the jury had been unable to reach agreement. The court denied permission to appeal. Section 54-96 provides: 'Appeals from the rulings and decisions of the superior court, upon all questions of law arising on the trial of criminal cases, may be taken by the state, with the permission of the presiding judge, to the supreme court, in the same manner and to the same effect as if made by the accused.' The right of appeal by the state in criminal matters was created by legislative enactment in 1886. 1886 Public Acts, c. 15. As we noted in State v. Carabetta, 106 Conn. 114, 119, 137 A. 394, 395: "Statutes authorizing an appeal in a criminal case must be strictly followed.' 17 C(orpus) J(uris) 14; State v. Caplan, 85 Conn. 618, 84 A. 280.' The conditions of the statute must therefore be met to have a valid appeal.
The 'rulings and decisions' appealable under § 54-96 include any proceeding from which either a criminal defendant or a party to a civil trial could appeal. State v. Clerkin, 58 Conn. 98, 101-102, 19 A. 517. In State v. Villafane, 164 Conn. 637, 325 A.2d 251, the state appealed, with permission, from the court's actions on a plea in abatement and a motion to quash. In State v. LaSelva, 163 Conn. 229, 303 A.2d 721, the state appealed, with permission, when the trial court sustained the defendant's demurrer. It follows that an order granting a motion to dismiss would be within the provisions of § 54-96.
Permission to appeal, as required by § 54-96, was not granted to the state. Since this condition for appeal is not present, there is no valid appeal. See Prevedini v. Mobil Oil Corporation, 164 Conn. 287, 293, 320 A.2d 797; State v. Lee, 65 Conn. 265, 282, 30 A. 1110.
The state maintains that § 54-96 is unconstitutional because it violates the separation of powers doctrine of the Connecticut constitution. It cites State v. Clemente, 166 Conn. 501, 353 A.2d 723, and Szarwak v. Warden, Conn., 355 A.2d 49, as support for its position. Szarwak dealt with a jurisdictional grant of the legislature to the derogation of the constitutional jurisdiction of the Superior Court. The principle stated was that the legislature may not, in its grant of jurisdiction to a lower court, detract from the essential constitutional characteristics of the Superior Court. Szarwak v. Warden, supra, 49. In Clemente, a functional test was used to determine the constitutionality of a criminal discovery s...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Carpenter v. Meachum
...construed § 52-273 to allow the bringing of a writ of error whenever an absolute right of appeal does not exist. In State v. Audet, 170 Conn. 337, 365 A.2d 1082 (1976), the state sought to appeal from the trial court's dismissal of four counts against the defendant. The relevant statute, Ge......
-
Simms v. Warden
...214 Conn. at 660-63, 574 A.2d 164; State v. S & R Sanitation Services, Inc., supra, 202 Conn. at 313, 521 A.2d 1017; State v. Audet, 170 Conn. 337, 340, 365 A.2d 1082 (1976). Under § 54-96, we have held permission to appeal to be jurisdictional because, at common law, the state had no right......
-
State v. Figueroa
....... There is no constitutional or common law right to appeal. Chanosky v. City Building Supply Co., 152 Conn. 449, 451, 208 A.2d 337 (1965). The right of appeal is purely statutory; State v. Audet, . Page 555 . 170 Conn. 337, 341, 365 A.2d 1082 (1976); and appellate tribunals may hear only those appeals over which they have been granted jurisdiction by statute. The principal statutory prerequisite to invoking our jurisdiction is that the ruling from which an appeal is sought must ......
-
State v. Bergin
...is an appealable issue within the provisions of § 54-96. State v. Ross, 189 Conn. 42, 51, 454 A.2d 266 (1983); State v. Audet, 170 Conn. 337, 341, 365 A.2d 1082 (1976). We also have often reviewed a trial court's probable cause determination; State v. Patterson, 213 Conn. 708, 717, 570 A.2d......
-
"incorporation" of the Criminal Procedure Amendments: the View from the States
...to appeal in criminal cases is granted only by statute, and there is no common-law right of such appeal by the state); State v. Audet, 365 A.2d 1082, 1085 (Conn. 1976) (holding state may not appeal in criminal case without first obtaining the permission of the trial judge). 162. See suprano......
-
The Scope of Procedural Rule-making in Connecticut: Further Confusion in State v. James and Bartholomew v. Schweizer
...Parker, 179 Conn. 552, 427 A.2d 814 (1980) (upholding § 51-47 which dealt with salary system for compensation of judges); State v. Audet, 170 Conn. 337, 365 A.2d 1082 (1976) (upholding § 54-96 limiting the State's Attorney's right to appeal). See also Note, supra note 8, at 131 n.54 for a d......