State v. Calhoun

• Citation: 23 Conn.Supp. 198,179 A.2d 837
• Decision Date: 12 January 1962
• Docket Number: No. MV,MV
• Court: Circuit Court of Connecticut. Connecticut Circuit Court, Appellate Division
• Parties: , 23 Conn.Supp. 198 STATE of Connecticut v. Philo C. CALHOUN. 15-1276.

Page 837

179 A.2d 837

1 Conn.Cir.Ct. 174, 23 Conn.Supp. 198

STATE of Connecticut v. Philo C. CALHOUN.

No. MV 15-1276.

Circuit Court of Connecticut, Appellate Division.

Argued Dec. 15, 1961.

Decided Jan. 12, 1962.

Philo C. Calhoun, Bridgeport, the appellant, pro se.

John Walsh, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the appellee (state).

ALEXANDER, Judge.

The alleged violation of § 14-237 of the General Statutes occurred at about noon on June 14, 1961, in the town of Newington on route 5, which was divided into two roadways by an esplanade. The defendant knew that this was a divided highway. At the time in question, he had been proceeding south at a point approximately opposite the Connecticut Light and Power Company, which was his destination. He had come to a stop in obedience to a traffic light. When a change of lights permitted, he turned left onto a crossover between the northbound and southbound roadways. He did so in the mistaken belief that the crossover continued easterly across route 5, thus permitting him to reach his destination. Upon perceiving that the crossover did not continue easterly across and beyond route 5, the defendant proceeded south in the northbound deceleration lane in the westerly portion of the northbound roadway. He thus continued south for a distance variously estimated at 50 to 100 yards, then crossed easterly over the two northbound concrete lanes onto a parking lot and thence to a driveway of the Connecticut Light and Power Company.

Several assignments of error are based on claims of facts erroneously found and on the court's failure to find certain facts. The changes sought would not directly affect the ultimate facts upon which the judgment depends. As no useful purpose would therefore be served by making these corrections, they are not made. Whippoorwill Crest Co. v. Stratford, 145 Conn. 268, 270, 141 A.2d 241.

Defendant argues that his conduct did not constitute a violation of § 14-237, which reads as follows: 'Driving on divided highways. When any highway has been divided into two roadways by leaving an intervening space or by a physical barrier or clearly indicated dividing section, each vehicle shall be driven only upon the right-hand roadway and no vehicle shall be driven over or across any such dividing space, barrier or section, except through an opening or at a crossover or intersection established by public authority.' Defendant maintains that the facts do not indicate a 'clearly indicated dividing section,' as the statute provides. Photographs introduced in evidence by defendant show what appears to be a clearly indicated area. However, there is no finding bearing on this other than the court's description of the center dividing area as being an 'esplanade.' An 'esplanade' is...