State v. Corrolla

• Decision Date: 06 April 1931
• Citation: 154 A. 152,113 Conn. 103
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. CORROLLA.

154 A. 152

113 Conn. 103

STATE v. CORROLLA.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

April 6, 1931

Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; John Richards Booth Judge.

Salvatore Corrolla was convicted of theft of an automobile, and he appeals.

No error.

Thomas R. FitzSimmons and Philip R. Pastore, both of New Haven, for appellant.

Samuel E. Hoyt, State's Atty., and Abraham S. Ullman, both of New Haven, for the State.

Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HAINES, HINMAN, BANKS, and AVERY JJ.

AVERY J.

On the trial of this case to the jury, the state offered evidence to prove, and claimed it had proved, that on June 29, 1930, one Ruggiero, the owner of a Hudson sedan, left it, in the evening of that day, in front of Carroll's Tavern, in the town of West Haven. At about 2 o'clock in the morning following, the owner returned to the place where he had left the automobile, and it was not there. He had given no one permission to take it. In the automobile was a jack. About an hour later, a detective of the New Haven, Police Department saw the car standing on, Liberty street, in the city of New Haven, a short distance from Washington avenue. A few minutes prior to seeing the car, the detective saw the accused Corrolla, and one Martin Pinto on Washington avenue, about 200 feet away from the car. The accused, Corrolla, and Pinto were observed by the detective looking into windows on Washington avenue, and were stopped and interrogated. At that time, there was found upon Pinto, among other things, a jack handle, and a memorandum book with the name Frank Manning written therein. Pinto, at that time, stated to the detective that his name was Frank Manning, and that he had found the jack handle lying on Liberty Street, in the road. The accused, Corrolla, and Pinto were then taken to police headquarters and questioned with regard to certain burglaries, and while there, a call was received by one of the police officers to the effect that the Hudson sedan belonging to Ruggiero, had been found on Liberty street by a police officer. The car was found on Liberty street about twenty minutes after it had been observed there by the detective, and when found its hood was warm. At the police station, after the call was received by the detective to the effect that the Hudson sedan, belonging to Ruggiero, had been found on Liberty street, the accused, Corrolla, in the presence of Pinto said that Pinto's name was not Frank Manning, but Martin Pinto, and that they had taken the car from in front of Carroll's Tavern, and had left it on Liberty street where Pinto's brother-in-law could get it.

The accused offered evidence to prove, and claimed that he had proved, that on the 29th of June at no time was he in the vicinity of Carroll's Restaurant. He denied making any statement to the detectives admitting the theft, and, by way of explaining his presence with Pinto on Washington avenue, claimed that he was proceeding from his home towards the center of the city, and that he had made an appointment to meet Pinto on Washington avenue, for the purpose of catching an early train to Stamford, at which place they proposed to endeavor to secure employment.

The accused, Corrolla, and Pinto were tried together on independent informations. They were each represented at the trial by separate counsel. Upon completion of the evidence offered by the state, counsel for Corrolla made a motion for the discharge of his client, upon the ground that the state had failed to legally establish the guilt of the accused of the offense charged in the information. The court denied this motion, and, at the same time, inquired of counsel, " If the jury should fail to find the intent necessary to...