State v. Dziob.
| Decision Date | 16 July 1946 |
| Parties | STATE v. DZIOB. |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Superior Court, Hartford County; Shea, Judge.
Frank Dziob was convicted of incest, and he appeals.
No error.
Thomas F. McDonough, of Hartford, for appellant.
Charles S. House, Asst. State's Atty., Hugh M. Alcorn, Jr., State's Atty., and John P. Hodgson, Asst. State's Atty., all of Hartford, for appellee.
Before MALTBIE, C. J., and BROWN, JENNINGS, ELLS and DICKENSON, JJ.
The defendant was found guilty of incest with his thirteen year old daughter. He has appealed, assigning error in the finding and also in the trial court's conclusion of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In his brief, he treats this as raising the question that the court could not properly reach that decision upon all the evidence. We shall so regard it, considering the finding only as showing, where there is conflicting evidence, the conclusion the court reached on it, and in relation to certain rulings on evidence as to which the defendant also assigns error. State v. Cots, 126 Conn. 48, 53, 9 A.2d 138.
It is not necessary to rehearse the sordid story related by the daughter. It is sufficient for the purposes of this decision to state that she testified unequivocally to numerous assaults by her father resulting in incest. Other witnesses testified to previous statements made by her to them as to the assaults. The defendant claims that the evidence establishes certain facts which discredit the testimony of the state's witnesses. We cannot hold that some of these facts were so established that the court must have believed them, and the weight to be given others as discrediting testimony was for the trial court to decide.
The trial court could have found the defendant guilty on the testimony of the daughter alone. Corroboration is not essential in cases of this character. State v. Zimnaruk, 128 Conn. 124, 126, 20 A.2d 613; State v. Lattin, 29 Conn. 389. Where the complainant has testified to the offense, evidence of other witnesses of her statements to them, showing constancy of accusation by her concerning it, is admissible in support of the state's case, however. State v. Segerberg, 131 Conn. 546, 549, 41 A.2d 101, 157 A.L.R. 1355. The chief claim of the defendant seems to be that the length of time which had elapsed between the date of the offense and the time when the girl first told witnesses of it rendered the evidence inadmissible. It has long been the established law of this state that delay of this nature does not affect the admissibility of the evidence, but merely presents a question for the trial court as to the weight to be given it. State v. De Wolf, 8 Conn. 93, 100, 20 Am.Dec. 90; State v. Byrne, 47 Conn. 465, 466; State v. Sebastian, 81 Conn. 1, 6, 69 A. 1054.
The defendant also assigns error in the admission of such statements in evidence because they were not made in his presence. In answer to this claim we refer to the reason for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Samuels
......denied, 258 Conn. 933, 785 A.2d 230 (2001); State v. Orhan, 52 Conn. App. 231, 243, 726 A.2d 629 (1999) . A jury, however, may draw reasonable inferences from the facts presented at trial. State v. Ford, 230 Conn. 686, 692, 646 A.2d 147 (1994) . In State v. Dziob, 133 Conn. 167, 170-71, 48 A.2d 377 (1946), the court stated that "[t]he state thereafter offered the testimony of the 817 A.2d 709 mother of a talk with the daughter some months before she was taken to the doctor, but the defendant claims that this did not constitute an accusation of the crime. ......
-
State v. Ouellette
...... We find no error in the rulings of the court, predicated on such cases as State v. Purvis, 157 Conn. 198, 207, 251 A.2d 178 [1968], cert. denied, 395 U.S. 928, 89 S.Ct. 1788, 23 L.Ed.2d 246 [1969]; State v. Dziob, 133 Conn. 167, 169, 48 A.2d 377 [1946]; State v. Sebastian, 81 Conn. 1, 3, 69 A. 1054 [1908]; State v. Byrne, 47 Conn. 465, 466 [1880]; State v. Kinney, 44 Conn. 153, 155 [1876]; State v. De Wolf, 8 Conn. 93 [1830]; see also 1 Wharton, Criminal Evidence (12th Ed.), p. 547 and 1971 ......
-
State v. Saraceno, 5289
...... State v. DeWolf, 8 Conn. 93, 100 [1830]; State v. Byrne, 47 Conn. 465, 466 [1880]; State v. Sebastian, 81 Conn. 1, 6, 69 A. 1054 [1908]." State v. Dziob, 133 Conn. 167, 169, 48 A.2d 377 (1946). This axiom has been recently reaffirmed by our Supreme Court in State v. Brigandi, 186 Conn. 521, 529, 442 A.2d 927 (1982), and a challenge to the usefulness and continued viability of the constancy of accusation doctrine as a whole was also recently ......
-
State v. Amarillo
...... 14 . [198 Conn. 309] A . The defendant recognizes that corroboration of a victim's testimony is unnecessary to sustain a conviction for the crime of sexual assault. State v. Brice, 186 Conn. 449, 458 n. 10, 442 A.2d 906 (1982); State v. Dziob, 133 Conn. 167, 169, 48 A.2d 377 (1946). Nevertheless, he asserts that the victim's initial description of him to the police was so significantly inaccurate as to require independent corroboration to establish probable cause to arrest. 15 "While in view of the ease of accusation and difficulty ......