State v. Carroll

Citation204 A.2d 412,152 Conn. 703
CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
Decision Date29 October 1964
PartiesSTATE of Connecticut v. Richard J. CARROLL. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut

George Gilman, Public Defender, for appellant (defendant).

Allyn L. Brown, Jr., State's Atty., for appellee (state).

Before KING, C. J., and MURPHY, ALCORN, COMLEY and SHANNON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, in a trial to the court, was found guilty of the crime of assault with intent to commit rape. General Statutes, § 53-239. The defendant entered a plea of guilty to simple assault but was tried on the more serious charge.

The sole issue on this appeal is whether the evidence was sufficient, beyond a reasonable doubt, to sustain the conviction. To determine this question, it is necessary to review the evidence which has been printed in the appendices in the briefs. The finding is superfluous. State v. Bill, 146 Conn. 693, 694, 155 A.2d 752; Putney v. Lehigh Truck Equipment Corporation, 145 Conn. 731, 141 A.2d 482. While the state printed no appendix, the defendant did. From the testimony of the witnesses and the exhibits, there was sufficient evidence to sustain the court's conclusion that the assault upon the complaining witness by the defendant was with the intent of forcibly having sexual relations with her against her will.

There is no error.

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • State v. Allen
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • July 20, 1967
    ...beyond a reasonable doubt. This claim must be tested by a review of the evidence printed in the appendices to the briefs. State v. Carroll, 152 Conn. 703, 204 A.2d 412. It is quite unnecessary to lengthen this opinion by adding to the facts already related all further details disclosed by t......
  • State v. Holmes
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • December 8, 1970
    ......149] in the appendices to the briefs. Practice Book § 644; State v. Moreno, 156 Conn. 233, 236, 240 A.2d 871. For this purpose the finding, except for its application to the ruling on evidence, is superfluous. State v. Carroll, 152 Conn. 703, 204 A.2d 412; State v. Pundy, 147 Conn. 7, 8, 156 A.2d 193; State v. Bill, 146 Conn. 693, 694, 155 A.2d 752; Maltbie, Conn.App.Proc. § 213; see also State v. Foord, 142 . Page 157. Conn. 285, 286, 113 A.2d 591; State v. Malm, 142 Conn. 113, 115, 111 A.2d 685. Since, however, the ......
  • State v. Moreno
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • March 14, 1968
    ...it is necessary to review the evidence which has been printed in the appendices in the briefs. Practice Book § 644; State v. Carroll, 152 Conn. 703, 204 A.2d 412; State v. Bill, 146 Conn. 693, 694, 155 A.2d 752; Maltbie, Conn.App.Proc. § 213. From the evidence it appears that in July, 1965,......
  • State v. Mallette
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • April 26, 1966
    ...the evidence which has been printed in the appendices to the briefs. State v. Taylor, 153 Conn. 72, 87, 214 A.2d 362; State v. Carroll, 152 Conn, 703, 204 A.2d 412. On the charge of robbery with violence, the jury had for consideration the testimony of the proprietor of a package store that......
  • 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