State v. DeMartin
| Decision Date | 22 December 1965 |
| Citation | 153 Conn. 708,216 A.2d 204 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. John DeMARTIN. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
Edward L. Reynolds, New Haven, for appellant (defendant).
George R. Tiernan, State's Atty., for appellee (state).
Before KING, C. J., and MURPHY, ALCORN, SHANNON and HOUSE, JJ.
The defendant was convicted of the crime of pool selling after a jury trial in the Superior Court. He has appealed from the judgment rendered on the verdict.
The basis of the appeal is the claimed error by the trial court in rulings on evidence. These rulings fall into two categories. The first involves the admission into evidence, as exhibits, of various racing sheets, a telephone and other items found by the officers upon entry and search of the defendant's premises. At the trial the defendant claimed that the search warrant under which the officers acted was illegal because it failed to embody the reasons on which the judge who issued it had determined that probable cause for its issuance existed, and that the evidence produced by the search directed by the warrant was therefore inadmissible. On this appeal the defendant attempts to commingle that claim with an additional claim that the court erred in issuing the search warrant because the affidavit on which it was based lacked allegations sufficient to support a finding of probable cause. We do not consider this additional claim since it was not made in or ruled on by the trial court. State v. McLaughlin, 132 Conn. 325, 339, 44 A.2d 116. The defendant directs us to no authority supporting the first part of the claim, namely, that the judge who issued the search warrant was required to recite in the warrant the grounds on which he found probable cause. Nor have we discovered any. While the federal courts have had occasion to apply rule 41(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, as in Weinberg v. United States, 126 F.2d 1004 (2d Cir.), we find no decision holding that any constitutional requirement applicable to state proceedings is involved. Section 54-33a of the General Statutes specifies the required content of the search warrant, and the warrant in this case meets those requirements. The court did not err in admitting into evidence the articles discovered in the search.
The second category involves the admission by the court of testimony concerning telephone calls answered by one of the search party while the search of the defendant's premises was in progress. One...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Vennard
...there must be a new trial, since the defendant has the burden of showing that the rulings were probably harmful to him. State v. DeMartin,153 Conn. 708, 710, 216 A.2d 204; Shulman v. Shulman, 150 Conn. 651, 662, 193 A.2d 525; Casalo v. Claro, 147 Conn. 625, 630, 165 A.2d 153. Assuming that ......
-
State v. Grimes
...harmful, material error in any ruling to which proper objection was made and exception taken. Practice Book § 226; State v. DeMartin, 153 Conn. 708, 710, 216 A.2d 204; Casalo v. Claro, supra, 147 Conn. 630, 165 A.2d On the appeal from the trial on merits, two other assignments of error rema......
-
State v. Costello
...authority is cited in support of this naked claim and we do not feel constrained to give it further consideration. See state v. DeMartin, 153 Conn. 708, 709, 216 A.2d 204. This statute provides for the issuance of a warrant after certain papers, books, money or paraphernalia used for gambli......
-
State v. McIntyre
...27 L.Ed.2d 625 (1971), overruled in part on other grounds, State v. Ferrell, 191 Conn. 37, 43, 463 A.2d 573 (1983); State v. DeMartin, 153 Conn. 708, 710, 216 A.2d 204 (1965). We are not persuaded that we should alter that course.10 Practice Book § 763 provides: "----Notice by Defendant"Upo......