State v. Chisolm
| Decision Date | 01 January 1972 |
| Citation | 162 Conn. 631,295 A.2d 563 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Igor I. Sikorsky, Jr., Hartford, with whom was Arthur G. Aaron, Hartford, for appellant (defendant).
George D. Stoughton, Chief Asst. State's Atty., with whom, on the brief, was John D. LaBelle, State's Atty., for appellee (state).
Before HOUSE, C.J., and COTTER, RYAN, SHAPIRO and LOISELLE, JJ.
On a trial to a jury the defendant Earl L. Chisolm was found guilty of two counts of unlawful possession of narcotic drugs and two counts of selling narcotic drugs. The court denied his motion to set aside the verdict and judgment was entered on the verdict as rendered. On this appeal claiming error in the refusal of the court to set aside the verdict, the claim of the defendant is that the jury's verdict is against the weight of the evidence. It is his claim that '(t)he record more than justifies the suspicion that the jurymen or some of them were influenced by prejudice . . . or partiality.'
We find no merit whatsoever to the appeal. Not only does it not appear that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence but a verdict is not tested by the weight of it. The quality, not the quantity, of the evidence is the proper test and it is for the jury as the trier of fact to determine the credibility of witnesses and what testimony they believe and what they consider is unworthy of credence. State v. White, 155 Conn. 122, 123, 230 A.2d 18; State v. Hodge, 153 Conn. 564, 573, 219 A.2d 367.
There is nothing in the record to indicate that the verdict returned was not reasonably reached on a proper consideration of all the evidence.
There is no error.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Zindros
...of witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony. State v. Rucker, 177 Conn. 370, 378, 418 A.2d 55 (1979); State v. Chisolm, 162 Conn. 631, 632, 295 A.2d 563 (1972). There was ample evidence to support the trial court's determination that the defendant had a reasonable expectation of......
-
State v. Carter
...part and disregard part of the testimony of a witness." Raia v. Topehius, 165 Conn. 231, 235, 332 A.2d 93 (1973); State v. Chisolm, 162 Conn. 631, 632, 295 A.2d 563 (1972). We further recognize that "[j]urors are not 'expected to lay aside matters of common knowledge or their own observatio......
-
State v. Haddad
...v. Coulombe, 143 Conn. 604, 608, 124 A.2d 518 (1956); see Raia v. Topehius, 165 Conn. 231, 235, 332 A.2d 93 (1973); State v. Chisolm, 162 Conn. 631, 632, 295 A.2d 563 (1972); Rood v. Russo, 161 Conn. 1, 3, 283 A.2d 220 (1971). The fact that the defendant's testimony contradicted that of Fau......
-
State v. Rucker
...the credibility of witnesses and what testimony they believe and what they consider is unworthy of credence. State v. Chisolm, 162 Conn. 631, 632, 295 A.2d 563 (1972); State v. White, 155 Conn. 122, 123, 230 A.2d 18 (1967). This applies to the defendant as well as to the convicted accomplic......