State v. Banet

Citation140 Conn. 118,98 A.2d 530
CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
Decision Date30 June 1953
PartiesSTATE v. BANET. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut

David R. Lessler, Bridgeport, for appellant (defendant).

James J. O'Connell, Pros. Atty., Bridgeport, for appellee (state).

Before BROWN, C. J., and BALDWIN, INGLIS, O'SULLIVAN and CORNELL, JJ. *

BALDWIN, Associate Justice.

The defendant was charged with the crime of larceny under § 8401 of the General Statutes. He was tried to the court and found guilty. The question on his appeal is whether the evidence established his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The trial court could reasonably have found the following facts: The defendant was a dealer in used automobiles, doing business as the Fairfield Auto Mart, Inc. On August 15, 1950, he sold and delivered a 1940 DeSoto sedan to Wiley Dukes for $425 upon a conditional sale contract which acknowledged the receipt of $70 cash and provided for payment of the balance in twelve monthly instalments. On October 21, 1950, he sold and delivered a 1937 Hudson-Terraplane coupe to Salvatore Salvaggio for $150 upon a conditional sale contract which acknowledged the receipt of $50 in cash and provided for payment of the balance in six monthly instalments. The defendant was indebted to the Park City Auto Finance Company, hereinafter referred to as the finance company, in the amount of $7800. He had given checks in part payment of this debt which were worthless because there were insufficient funds in the bank upon which they were drawn to pay them. On December 15, 1950, the defendant met with Paul Harold, president of the finance company, in the office of Robert K. Lesser, an attorney. There, in the presence of Lesser, the defendant executed a note for the amount of the debt and, for security, indorsed and assigned to the finance company about twenty-five conditional sales contracts. Among them were the Dukes and Salvaggio contracts hereinbefore referred to. The total of the balances due on the contracts assigned was not more than $7800. Each assignment stated that 'For value received the undersigned [Fairfield Auto Mart, Inc., by B. Banet] hereby assigns the conditional sales contract, hereon, to the Park City Auto Finance Co., Inc. and hereby transfers title to the motor vehicle described therein to said assignee. * * *' The defendant agreed with Harold that Lesser would hold the conditional sales contracts, collect the money due on them and apply it toward the defendant's indebtedness. Lesser by letter notified Dukes and Salvaggio, among others, to make all future payments to him.

At the time the assignments of the conditional sales contracts were indorsed, the defendant and Harold discussed the execution of a written agreement covering the contracts assigned. Lesser prepared such an agreement, which had annexed to it a list of contracts. The proposed agreement contained a statement to the effect that, upon default in any of the accounts or repossession of any of the cars covered by them, the Fairfield Auto Mart would substitute another account not listed or pay over to the finance company the money realized from the repossession and sale of the car. Both the defendant and Harold refused to sign the agreement.

During the latter part of January, 1951, Salvaggio was in default in his payments and the defendant took the Hudson-Terraplane from him. Salvaggio paid the defendant $60 on account and agreed to pay the balance, and the defendant returned the car. He kept the money. In February, 1951, Dukes was in default in his payments and the defendant took the DeSoto car, had repairs made on it and advertised it for sale. Before repossessing these automobiles, the defendant notified the Bridgeport police department that he intended to repossess them. The defendant knew that he had no right to repossess the cars or to collect the money due upon the contracts for their sale. Neither Lesser nor the finance company gave him authority to do it or knew at the time that he had done it. He has never returned the cars to the finance company or turned over to it any payments collected by him.

Section 8401 of the General Statutes provides that '[a]ny person who shall steal any money, goods or chattels, * * * if the value of the property stolen * * * shall exceed fifty dollars but shall not exceed two thousand dollars, * * * shall be imprisoned not more than five years'. To support a conviction for larceny, the evidence must be sufficient to establish the essential elements of the crime charged. These are (1) the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal property of another; (2) the existence of a felonious intent in the taker to deprive the owner of it permanently; and (3) the lack of the consent of the owner. State v. Main, 75 Conn. 55, 59, 52 A. 257; State v. Sawyer, 95 Conn. 34, 36, 110 A....

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • State v. Kurvin
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • March 30, 1982
    ...larceny relates to both aspects. The taking must be wrongful, that is, without color of right or excuse for the act; State v. Banet, 140 Conn. 118, 122, 98 A.2d 530 (1953); and without the knowing consent of the owner. State v. Marra, 174 Conn. 338, 342, 387 A.2d 550 (1978). The requisite i......
  • In re Michaela Lee R., (SC 16122)
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • July 11, 2000
    ......572 Opinion .         KATZ, J. .         This appeal requires us to determine whether a Probate Court of this state or the plaintiff, the commissioner of public health (commissioner), 2 has the authority to delete a biological parent's name from a birth ......
  • Almeida v. Holder, 08-1410-ag.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • December 8, 2009
    ...personal property of another" without the consent of the owner and with a specific intent to deprive permanently. State v. Banet, 140 Conn. 118, 122, 98 A.2d 530, 531 (1953). 7. The conditions are: "(1) The property consists of a motor vehicle, the value of which exceeds ten thousand dollar......
  • State v. Vars
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • November 29, 1966
    ...2 Wharton, Criminal Law (12th Ed.) § 1097; 1 Bishop, Criminal Law (9th Ed.) § 566; 32 Am.Jur. 883 (Larceny, § 2).' State v. Banet, 140 Conn. 118, 122, 98 A.2d 530, 531. Each count of the information charged that the defendant stole a sum of money from the savings account of Joanna Rockwell.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT