State v. Delgado
| Citation | 178 Conn. 448,423 A.2d 106 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Decision Date | 17 July 1979 |
| Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Victor DELGADO. |
Nicholas P. Cardwell, Hartford, for appellant (defendant).
Richard L. Shiffrin, Asst. State's Atty., with whom, on the brief, was George D. Stoughton, State's Atty., for appellee (state).
Before LOISELLE, BOGDANSKI, LONGO, PETERS and ARTHUR H. HEALEY, JJ.
Sometime after midnight on February 27, 1977, the defendant, Victor Delgado, entered the Stumble Inn in New Britain and, after he had been refused service and asked to leave, pulled a knife from within his coat and cut or stabbed Joseph Coccomo and David Bitner, causing serious injury to both, before he was subdued by other patrons of the establishment and arrested by the police. The defendant was convicted after trial to the court on two counts of first degree assault. General Statutes § 53a-59(a)(1). The defendant filed a motion for judgment of acquittal, which was denied, and, from the judgment of conviction rendered, has appealed to this court.
The defendant first claims that the court erred in refusing to allow the defense on cross-examination to question David Bitner, one of those assaulted, as to his opinion whether the defendant had intended to injure him. We disagree. The rule of law applicable to this case is that Bitner was required only to state the facts, and not his individual opinions and conclusions as to the defendant's intent. State v. Palozie, 165 Conn. 288, 297, 334 A.2d 468 (1973). More particularly, under General Statutes § 53a-59(a)(1) intent is a question of fact for the determination of the trier of fact based upon the competent evidence presented, and a witness cannot testify as to the uncommunicated intent of another person where the trier of fact is as well qualified as the witness to form an opinion on the subject. Odom v. State, 348 So.2d 277, 281 (Ala.App.1977); Thomas v. State, 317 So.2d 450, 451-52 (Fla.App.1975); State v. Dillon, 93 Idaho 698, 471 P.2d 553 (1970); State v. Seehan, 258 N.W.2d 374, 379 (Iowa 1977); Newell v. State, 308 So.2d 71, 73 (Miss.1975); State v. Sanders, 295 N.C. 361, 369, 245 S.E.2d 674 (1978). Moreover, the testimony printed in the state's appendix discloses that the court was fully apprised of the defendant's conduct in wielding the knife, and was provided, without Bitner's testimony, with sufficient evidence to reach its own conclusion with respect to the defendant's intent.
The defendant finally claims that the court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal, arguing that the state failed to prove the requisite element of "intent to cause serious physical injury" under § 53a-59(a)(1). We cannot agree. A person acts "intentionally" in relation to a criminal statute defining an offense "when his conscious objective is to cause such result (the offense) or to engage in such conduct...." General...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Rasmussen
...its charge, "[i]t is not essential that the State prove motive. Motive is not an element of the crime of murder." See State v. Delgado, 178 Conn. 448, 423 A.2d 106 (1979); State v. Bzdyra, supra. A jury, finding lack of motive, could, but is not obligated to, conclude that the defendant did......
-
State v. Strich, 27371.
...further notes, Kopaz would not have been a competent witness for testimony relating to the defendant's intent. See State v. Delgado, 178 Conn. 448, 449, 423 A.2d 106 (1979). The court's ruling was therefore proper. See State v. Sandoval, supra, 263 Conn. at 541-43, 821 A.2d The third eviden......
-
State v. Vilalastra, 3726
...of another person where the trier of fact is as well qualified as the witness to form an opinion on the subject." State v. Delgado, 178 Conn. 448, 449, 423 A.2d 106 (1979) (intent to injure). Where the issue is intent to sell narcotics, a police officer, testifying as an expert, may give an......
-
State v. Wynter
...its discretion in excluding the defendant's conclusion on an issue that was properly one for the jury to draw. State v. Delgado, 178 Conn. 448, 449, 423 A.2d 106 (1979). The trial court also sustained the state's objection to the relevancy of the defense's question to Liebowitz as to whethe......