State v. Camera.
| Citation | 132 Conn. 247,43 A.2d 664 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
| Decision Date | 28 June 1945 |
| Parties | STATE v. CAMERA. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, New Haven County; Fitzgerald, Judge.
Fred Camera was convicted of driving an automobile recklessly in violation of statute, and he appeals.
Error and new trial ordered.
William L. Beers and George E. Beers, both of New Haven, for appellant.
Edwin S. Pickett, of New Haven, for appellee.
Before MALTBIE, C. J., and BROWN, JENNINGS, ELLS and DICKENSON, JJ.
The defendant, arrested on a bench warrant issued by the Court of Common Pleas for New Haven County, was found guilty, in a trial to the court without a jury, of driving an automobile recklessly, in violation of § 231f of the 1941 Supplement to the General Statutes, and has appealed. His first assignment of error is that the trial court could not properly, upon all the evidence, find him guilty. The essential facts found are supported by the evidence. Briefly summarized, they state the following situation. On a clear night two men, Ematrudo and Guarino, desiring to board a trolley car which was approaching, stepped into the street and proceeded until they were some ten feet out from the curb. The trolley was slowing down to stop for them. The defendant, driving his car in the same direction as the trolley and a little behind it, was proceeding at a speed of 25 miles an hour. In order to pass the trolley car as it was slowing down, he increased his speed to about 40 miles and hour. He admitted that he saw the men in the street ahead of him. He finally put his brakes on hard, but his car did not stop until after the men, seeing it bearing down upon them, had hastily run onto the tracks in front of the trolley, which had not then reached them and which was immediately stopped. Upon these facts, the trial court could reasonably reach the conclusion that the defendant was guilty of reckless driving as defined in the statute.
The defendant had been previously arraigned in the City Court of New Haven on a charge, growing out of the same occurrence, that he had violated § 233f of the 1941 Supplement to the General Statutes, which penalizes operators of motor vehicles who pass trolley cars which have stopped, or, under certain circumstances not present here, which are about to stop, to take on or discharge passengers. He had been found not guilty. As the offense charged against him in the City Court was entirely different from that alleged in the Court of Common Pleas, he could not plead former conviction or double jeopardy as a defense. His claim in support of his contention that the trial court could not in this case find him guilty of reckless driving is that it was precluded from finding facts contrary to those which had been determined by the judgment of the City Court. In a criminal, as well as in a civil case, the doctrine of res adjudicata requires that a judgment in a former action between the same parties be held conclusive as to any issue therein determined. United States v. Oppenheimer, 242 U.S. 85, 88, 37 S.Ct. 68, 61 L.Ed. 161, 3 L.R.A. 516; Commonwealth v. Ellis, 160 Mass. 165, 35 N.E. 773; In re Gottesfeld, 245 Pa. 314, 317, 91 A. 494; 2 Freeman, Judgments, 5th Ed., § 648; Note, 147 A.L.R. 991. Where a defendant relies upon a prior judgment of acquittal, the estoppel includes only those facts which were actually litigated or were necessarily involved in the prior proceeding. State v. Coblentz, 169 Md. 159, 164, 180 A. 266, 185 A. 350; Commonwealth v. Greevy, 271 Pa. 95, 100, 114 A. 511; 2 Freeman, loc. cit. All that appears as to the proceeding in the City Court is that the defendant was charged with the offense of ‘passing a standing trolley car.’ The trial court found upon sufficient evidence in the case now before us that the trolley car was slowing its speed when the defendant passed it. Such a finding is not contrary to but entirely harmonious with the decision of the City Court that he was not guilty of passing a standing trolley car. The doctrine of res adjudicata did not prevent the trial court from giving effect to its finding in the present case.
Ematrudo,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Christman v. Kick
...necessary to warrant conviction." State v. Sandra O., 51 Conn.App. 463, 467, 724 A.2d 1127, 1129 (1999) (quoting State v. Camera, 132 Conn. 247, 251, 43 A.2d 664 (1945)). Recklessness requires "a conscious choice of a course of action, either with knowledge of the serious danger to others i......
-
State v. Aillon
...417, 418, 69 L.Ed. 761 (1924); United States v. Oppenheimer, 242 U.S. 85, 87, 37 S.Ct. 68, 69, 61 L.Ed. 161 (1916); State v. Camera, 132 Conn. 247, 249, 43 A.2d 664 (1945); see also Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436, 443, 90 S.Ct. 1189, 1194, 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970); State v. Wilson, 180 Conn. 48......
-
State v. Wilson
...356 U.S. 464, 470-71, 78 S.Ct. 829, 833-834, 2 L.Ed.2d 913, reh. denied, 357 U.S. 933, 78 S.Ct. 1366, 2 L.Ed.2d 1375; State v. Camera, 132 Conn. 247, 249, 43 A.2d 664. See also State v. Moeller, 178 Conn. 67 pp. 74-75, n. 6, 420 A.2d 1153. See generally, annot., Modern Status of Doctrine of......
-
State v. Harris
...crime has committed other similar but unconnected crimes' is ordinarily inadmissible in proof of the crime charged; State v. Camera, 132 Conn. 247, 251, 43 A.2d 664, and cases cited; although it should not be overlooked that the rule has certain apparent exceptions, as is explained in cases......