State v. Brown

• Decision Date: 01 June 1971
• Citation: 286 A.2d 304,161 Conn. 219
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE of Connecticut v. James BROWN.

Page 304

286 A.2d 304

161 Conn. 219

STATE of Connecticut v. James BROWN.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

June 1, 1971.

Ralph F. Scofield, Special Public Defender, for the appellant (defendant).

Donald A. Browne, Asst. State's Atty. with whom, on the brief, was Joseph T. Gormley, Jr., State's Atty., for the appellee (state).

Before HOUSE, THIM, RYAN, SHAPIRO and LOISELLE, ^* JJ.

HOUSE, Chief Justice.

James Brown was indicted by a grand jury on May 29, 1967, for the crime of murder in the first degree in that on May 12, 1967, he did wilfully, deliberately and with premeditation and malice aforethought shoot and kill Charlotte Bland in violation of § 53-9 of the General Statutes. Initially the defendant pleaded not guilty but, on October 18, 1967, he entered a plea of guilty to murder in the second degree. He subsequently moved for permission to withdraw this plea and the motion was denied by the trial court. On appeal this court held that it was error to deny the motion. The judgment was set aside and the case was remanded for further proceedings. State v. Brown, 157 Conn. 492, 255 A.2d 612. Thereafter, the defendant pleaded not guilty to the indictment. He was tried by a jury of twelve which returned a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree. After a hearing held in accordance with the provisions of § 53-10 of the General Statutes, the jury recommended a sentence of life imprisonment, which was imposed. On this appeal the sole assignment of error is the claim that the court erred in denying the defendant's motion to set aside the verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree. It is the basic claim of the defendant that the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the necessary elements of the crime of murder in the first degree. Such a claim is tested by the evidence printed in the appendices to the briefs and such exhibits as are made a part of the record. State v. Hassett, 155 Conn. 225, 232, 230 A.2d 553; State v. Stallings, 154 Conn. 272, 283, 224 A.2d 718. If the verdict is one which twelve honest jurors acting fairly, intelligently and reasonably could have reached on the evidence submitted to them, then the verdict cannot be disturbed. State v. Miller, 154 Conn. 622, 624, 228 A.2d 136.

From the evidence the jury could have found the following facts: The defendant, aged forty-seven, with a wife and four children living in North Carolina, came to Stamford in 1966 and established an illicit sexual relationship with Miss Bland, whom he regarded as 'his woman'. On the night of May 11, 1967, Miss Bland with a friend, Helen Brown, who lived at the same address as the defendant, spent several hours with two men visiting bars and restaurants in Stamford and Portchester, New York. The women returned home about 4 a.m., on May 12, and Miss Bland, who was driving, stopped her car in front of the apartment house in which the defendant lived to let Miss Brown out. As Miss Bland was preparing to drive away, the defendant, who had been sitting on the porch waiting for her, walked over to the car and shot at her seven times. The shots came in who bursts. Three of the bullets struck Miss Bland and she died of exsanguination resulting from massive hemorrhages in the space surrounding the heart and both lungs caused by a bullet wound in the chest. After the shooting, the defendant returned to his apartment, gave the pistol to Louise Adams and said to her: 'Mom, call the police. I just killed Charlotte.' She placed the pistol on a dresser and made a telephone call to the police department. The defendant took the telephone from her, identified...