State v. Cocheo
Decision Date | 13 February 1963 |
Docket Number | No. CR,CR |
Citation | 24 Conn.Supp. 377,190 A.2d 916 |
Court | Circuit Court of Connecticut. Connecticut Circuit Court, Appellate Division |
Parties | , 24 Conn.Supp. 377 STATE of Connecticut v. John F. COCHEO. 15-1686. |
Robert Satter and Karl Fleischmann, Hartford, for appellant (defendant).
James R. Burton, Asst. Pros. Atty., for appellee (state).
The defendant was found guilty, after a trial to the jury, of wilful injury to personal property in violation of § 53-126 of the General Statutes. In his appeal, the defendant assigns a single error--that the court erred in denying the request of defendant's attorney, in the course of cross-examination of the state's witness, Edward Hawley, for permission to see a statement previously given by the witness to the police.
The facts may be summarized as follows: On August 13, 1961, Hawley, together with Jack Gasiorowski, stole an automobile in Newington and drove it to Beckley's quarry in Berlin, where they attempted to push the car off a cliff. Later, they enlisted the help of the defendant and two others, John Lyman and Anthony Palombizio. The latter drove the defendant's automobile, with the defendant as a passenger, to the scene of the crime. Hawley testified that the defendant was not only present but helped push the stolen car over the cliff. This testimony was contradicted by the defendant, who testified in his own behalf. Since Hawley's testimony was most damaging to the claim of the defendant of nonparticipation, defense counsel, in order to impeach Hawley's credibility, sought to obtain from the prosecutor a statement purported to have been given by Hawley to the police in the course of their investigation. No reason for the claim was stated, nor was it asserted that, in the belief of counsel, the statement contained declarations of the witness, previously made, which were inconsistent with his present testimony. The defendant demanded to see the alleged statement as a matter of right on the ground that a communication of the police department, in the possession of the prosecutor, was not privileged and the defendant was entitled to inspect it. The court denied the request. State v. Pikul, 150 Conn. 195, 202, 187 A.2d 442, 445; see State v. Roy, 23 Conn.Sup. 342, 183 A.2d 291. 1
It has been variously stated that the rule denying examination of such prior statements of a state's witness to the defendant as a matter of right is based on public policy, the informer privilege or the attorney-client privilege. See 8 Wigmore, Evidence §§ 2374, 2375 (McNaughton Rev. 1961) and cases cited. Much of the defendant's argument in this case is devoted to a denial of any attorney-client privilege between the prosecutor and the police department and with that we agree. That point was perhaps inadvertently interposed during the trial and had no significance in the claim of the defendant to inspect the statement as a matter of right. Our rule is based on public policy and is derived not so much from any absolute privilege of nondisclosure as from a basic rule of evidence applicable not only in criminal prosecutions but also in civil cases. Thus, where a party in a civil action is required to produce a document in response to a subpoena duces tecum, the document so produced may not be examined by the opposing party as a matter of right. It is within the sound discretion of the court, after first inspecting the document, to permit or refuse examination by opposing counsel, and this discretion is not reviewable when properly exercised. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hill v. Crouse, 8629.
...N.M. 287, 354 P.2d 1002; Gaskin v. State of Texas, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 7, 353 S.W.2d 467; State v. Shouse, Fla. App., 177 So.2d 724; State v. Cocheo, 24 Conn.Sup. 377, 1 Conn.Cir. 610, 190 A. 2d 916; State v. Hill, Kan., supra; and State v. Robinson, 61 Wash.2d 107, 377 P.2d 248. Compare State v.......
-
State v. Whitaker
...that traditionally, the state does not have the power "to probe the files of defense counsel." See State v. Cocheo, 1 Conn.Cir.Ct. 610, 614, 24 Conn.Supp. 377, 381, 190 A.2d 916 (1963). We agree with the defendant that the trial court should not have ordered the production of the statements......
-
State v. Marzbanian
...the ruling of the court denying the defendant access to the statement. State v. Pikul, 150 Conn. 195, 202, 187 A.2d 442; State v. Cocheo, 24 Conn.Sup. 377, 190 A.2d 916. With regard to the final ruling assigned as error, no transcript of the remarks of the assistant prosecutor in his closin......
-
State v. Fay
...this defendant, who had the right, prior to trial, to ask to inspect the S-5 radar equipment. The defendant relies on State v. Cocheo, 24 Conn.Sup. 377, 381, 190 A.2d 916, in support of his argument that he did not have the right to request inspection of the radar machine before trial. In t......