State v. DaVila

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
Writing for the CourtBefore BALDWIN; MURPHY; BALDWIN
Citation150 Conn. 1,183 A.2d 852
PartiesSTATE of Connecticut v. Robert R. DaVILA. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut
Decision Date27 July 1962

Page 852

183 A.2d 852
150 Conn. 1
STATE of Connecticut
v.
Robert R. DaVILA.
Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.
July 27, 1962.

[150 Conn. 2]

Page 853

John F. James, Special Public Defender, for the appellant (defendant).

John F. McGowan, Assistant State's Attorney, with whom, on the brief, was Otto J. Saur, State's Attorney, for the appellee (state).

Before [150 Conn. 1] BALDWIN, C. J., and KING, MURPHY, SHEA and ALCORN, JJ.

[150 Conn. 2] MURPHY, Associate Justice.

The defendant, after a trial to the jury, was convicted of a violation of the Uniform State Narcotic Drug Act in having heroin, a narcotic drug, under his control. He has appealed, assigning error in the refusal of the court to charge as requested, in the charge as given, and in two rulings on evidence. One of the alleged evidential errors has not been mentioned in the brief, and the other has not been properly briefed. They are considered to have been abandoned. West Realty Co. v. Ennis, 147 Conn. 602, 603, 164 A.2d 409; State v. Harris, 147 Conn. 589, 591, 164 A.2d 399. The other assignments of error have received such [150 Conn. 3] superficial treatment in the defendant's brief that they could readily be considered as being not seriously pressed. To so regard them would, however, be unfair to the defendant. The defendant's brief cites but one case, and it is not cited as authority to show error in any respect.

The defendant admits that he is a drug addict and that he has purchased narcotics for his own use on many occasions. At the trial, the state offered evidence to prove the following: The defendant became acquainted with George Leach, with whom, and with others, he smoked marihuana in a Danbury park. Leach and the defendant discussed narcotics, and the defendant offered to sell some to Leach, who stated that he had a friend who would be interested. Thereafter, the defendant told Leach that he was going to New York to obtain narcotics which he desired to dispose of through Leach's friend. The following day, the defendant returned, with ten bags of heroin, to his apartment, where Leach met him by prearrangement. They then went to a car parked on the street, and there the defendant, after being introduced, sold nine of the bags to a man who later turned out to be a federal narcotics agent. The defendant did not want to sell the tenth bag of heroin to the agent because he was keeping it for a friend.

The only material difference in the state's claims of proof and those of the defendant is that he claims that Leach on several occasions asked him to get him narcotics for a friend and that on the occasion in

Page 854

question Leach provided part of the purchase price. The defendant admits selling the nine bags of narcotics to the agent but claims that Leach induced him to do so. According to the defendant, he kept the last bag for his own use.

[150 Conn. 4] The information upon which the defendant was arraigned charged him with violating the uniform act at Danbury on June 18, 1960, by having under his control certain narcotic drugs, to wit, heroin, contrary to statute. The specific statute was not identified in the body of the information, although §§ 19-246 and 19-265 were endorsed on the jacket of the information as the applicable sections. Section 19-246 provides that '[n]o person shall manufacture, possess, have under his control, sell, prescribe, dispense, compound, administer to himself or to another person or be addicted to the use of any narcotic drug, except as authorized in' the uniform act. Section 19-265 sets...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 practice notes
  • State v. Ortiz
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • March 17, 2000
    ...issues and sufficient to guide the jury. See State v. Annunziato, 169 Conn. 517, 252 Conn. 561 531, 363 A.2d 1011 (1975); State v. DaVila, 150 Conn. 1, 5, 183 A.2d 852 (1962). The primary purpose of the charge to the jury is to assist them in applying the law correctly to the facts which th......
  • State v. Annunziato
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • September 16, 1975
    ...met the test of being in accordance with the law, adapted to the issues and sufficient for the guidance of the jury. State v. DaVila, 150 Conn. 1, 5, 183 A.2d 852; Smith v. New Haven, supra. The court's refusal to comply with the specific request could not have prejuduced the defendant. Zis......
  • State v. Cooper
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • August 19, 1980
    ...to the issues and sufficient to guide the jury. See State v. Annunziato, 169 Conn. 517, 531, 363 A.2d 1011 (1975); State v. DaVila, 150 Conn. 1, 5, 183 A.2d 852 (1962). "The primary purpose of the charge to the jury is to assist them in applying the law correctly to the facts which the......
  • State v. Vars
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • November 29, 1966
    ...in the finding and not by the evidence. Practice Book §§ 635, 348; State v. Mallette, 153 Conn. 584, 587, 219 A.2d 447; State v. DaVila, 150 Conn. 1, 5, 183 A.2d 852; State v. Harris, 147 Conn. 589, 599, 164 A.2d 399, 83 A.L.R.2d 783; Maltbie, Conn.App.Proc. §§ 145, An examination of the ev......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 cases
  • State v. Ortiz
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • March 17, 2000
    ...issues and sufficient to guide the jury. See State v. Annunziato, 169 Conn. 517, 252 Conn. 561 531, 363 A.2d 1011 (1975); State v. DaVila, 150 Conn. 1, 5, 183 A.2d 852 (1962). The primary purpose of the charge to the jury is to assist them in applying the law correctly to the facts which th......
  • State v. Annunziato
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • September 16, 1975
    ...met the test of being in accordance with the law, adapted to the issues and sufficient for the guidance of the jury. State v. DaVila, 150 Conn. 1, 5, 183 A.2d 852; Smith v. New Haven, supra. The court's refusal to comply with the specific request could not have prejuduced the defendant. Zis......
  • State v. Cooper
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • August 19, 1980
    ...to the issues and sufficient to guide the jury. See State v. Annunziato, 169 Conn. 517, 531, 363 A.2d 1011 (1975); State v. DaVila, 150 Conn. 1, 5, 183 A.2d 852 (1962). "The primary purpose of the charge to the jury is to assist them in applying the law correctly to the facts which the......
  • State v. Vars
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • November 29, 1966
    ...in the finding and not by the evidence. Practice Book §§ 635, 348; State v. Mallette, 153 Conn. 584, 587, 219 A.2d 447; State v. DaVila, 150 Conn. 1, 5, 183 A.2d 852; State v. Harris, 147 Conn. 589, 599, 164 A.2d 399, 83 A.L.R.2d 783; Maltbie, Conn.App.Proc. §§ 145, An examination of the ev......
  • 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