State v. Barnes. Same
| Decision Date | 08 November 1945 |
| Citation | 132 Conn. 370,44 A.2d 708 |
| Parties | STATE v. BARNES. SAME v. GAMBLE. SAME v. JOHNSON (two cases). |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; Munger, Judge.
Josephine Barnes, Anna Gamble, Ethel Johnson and Vivian Johnson were convicted of the offense of conspiracy to steal fur coats and they appeal.
No error.
Louis Feinmark, of New Haven, for appellants Anna Gamble and Ethel johnson.
Salvatore P. Genuario, of Bridgeport, for appellants Josephine Barnes and Vivian Johnson.
Lorin W. Willis, State's Atty., and Otto J. Saur, Asst. State's Atty., both of Bridgeport, for appellee.
Before MALTBIE, C. J., and BROWN, JENNINGS, ELLS and DICKENSON, JJ.
The defendants were charged in Fairfield County with conspiracy to steal fur coats. Overt acts in Stamford and Norwalk were alleged. The trial was to the court and the issue on appeal concerns the admission of evidence of criminal acts of the defendants in New Haven County. The finding is not attacked.
On October 11, 1944, the defendants entered a small fur store in Stamford. The defendant Barnes said she wanted to buy a fur coat and the other three defendants appeared as friends to help her make a selection. While the proprietor was helping the defendant Barnes, two of the other defendants stood around him shutting off his view of the store while the fourth appeared to be looking at the coats on the racks. The defendant Barnes tentatively selected a fur coat and made a deposit of $5. She took a receipt in the name of Evelyn Johnson. After the defendants left, the proprietor found that a valuable fur coat which had been on the rack when they entered the store was missing. He had not seen them carrying any coat or bundle as they left.
Shortly afterwards, the defendants visited a small fur store in Norwalk. The procedure and results were the same except that the defendant Barnes added a false address and that four articles which had been on the racks when the defendants entered were missing. No person entered either store between the time of the arrival of the defendants and the time of the discovery that the fur coats were missing.
About two hours later the four defendants entered a fur store in New Haven. The proprietor saw the defendant Ethel Johnson putting a fur coat under her skirt and called the police. Upon the demand of the latter, she let the fur coat drop. Two fur coats belonging to the same store were found in toilet rooms used by the defendants Barnes and Gamble at the New Haven police station. A search of the defendants revealed that each one of them had concealed on her person three or four large pins generally known as horse blanket pins. No evidence was offered on behalf of the defendants.
The defendants admit that evidence that they were together in New Haven was admissible on the question of identification, but they except to the claim of the state that it was relevant to prove their guilt of the crime of conspiracy to steal fur coats, on the principal ground that proof of guilt of other crimes than that charged is inadmissible for the latter purpose.
The rule relied on by the defendants has been repeated in practically all of the numerous cases in which the point has been considered. State v. Gilligan, 92 Conn. 526, 530, 103 A. 649; State v. Simborski, 120 Conn. 624, 630, 182 A. 221. There are certain exceptions to its application which are as well recognized as is the rule itself. Among these are those permitting such evidence to show identity, intent and a ‘common scheme embracing the commission of two or more crimes so related to each other that proof of one tends to establish the other.’ Jones v. State, 182 Md. 653, 35 A.2d 916, 918; People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264, 305, 61 N.E. 286, 62 L.R.A. 193,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Doehrer
...v. Hauck, 172 Conn. 140, 144, 374 A.2d 150 (1976); State v. Harris, 147 Conn. 589, 599-600, 164 A.2d 399 (1960); State v. Barnes, 132 Conn. 370, 372-73, 44 A.2d 708 (1945); see 2 Wigmore, Evidence (3d Ed.) § 304. We have recently noted that evidence of plan, scheme or conspiracy " 'will be ......
-
State v. Randolph, 17352.
...inference that an overall plan existed that explains our use of the signature test in the second category of cases. State v. Barnes, 132 Conn. 370, 44 A.2d 708 (1945), is a paradigmatic example. In Barnes, four defendants were charged with conspiracy to steal fur coats from furriers located......
-
State v. Harris
...as State v. Chapman, 103 Conn. 453, 482, 130 A. 899; State v. Palko, 122 Conn. 529, 536, 191 A. 320, 113 A.L.R. 628; and State v. Barnes, 132 Conn. 370, 372, 44 A.2d 708. A claimed evidential ruling particularly stressed relates to the so-called Curcio transaction. A claim of error in the a......
-
Greenwald v. State
...361, 58 A.2d 663. He concedes that this general rule is applicable in cases of conspiracy. Bloomer v. State, 48 Md. 521; State v. Barnes, 132 Conn. 370, 44 A.2d 708, 709. His argument on the point is that the details of the prior acts differ from those of the occurrence of February 6 to a d......