State v. Engle

• Decision Date: 15 November 1932
• Citation: 115 Conn. 638,162 A. 922
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. ENGLE

162 A. 922

115 Conn. 638

STATE v. ENGLE

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

November 15, 1932

Appeal from superior Court, New Haven County; Alfred C. Baldwin Judge.

Charles Eeengle was convicted by a jury under an information charging him with assault with intent to murder, and he appeals.

Error and a new trial ordered.

Thomas R. Robinson, Public Defender, of New Haven, for appellant.

Samuel E. Hoyt, State's Atty., Abraham S. Ullman, Asst State's Atty., and Irving Sweedler, all of New Haven, for the State.

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

HAINES, J.

At the trial the state offered evidence to prove, and claimed to have proved, that on February 1, 1920, the accused was living in New Haven with his wife in a two-room furnished apartment, one room being used as a bedroom and one as a kitchen, and both had been employed in New Haven for three weeks or more. On Sunday, February 1, 1920, about 9:30 in the forenoon, Currier and Healy, two detectives of the New Haven police department, claiming to have a letter in their possession containing information relative to the accused and having his photograph, were admitted to the building by the landlady, who recognized the photographs as that of he accused, and, acting by direction of the detectives, knocked on the door of the apartment occupied by the accused and his wife, saying a gentleman wanted to see him. The accused and his wife had just arisen, and were not fully clothed, but the accused soon opened the door and admitted the detectives, who then said they were looking for D.J. Connolly, and showed him the photograph. Though first denying that the photograph was of himself, the accused finally admitted it was, and, after further questioning, was ordered to dress, taken certain articles such as his watch and money, leaving some of the latter for his wife, and go with the detectives to the police station to await the arrival of officers from Chicago. They told him they had a letter stating that he was wanted in Chicago for a bond forfeiture connected with the theft of a motor vehicle. After dressing, the accused went to the dresser at the left of the door of the kitchen and opened a drawer to get a handkerchief. He also took from the drawer a small package which the officers at the time could not see, making a remark about putting it in the trunk which stood just inside the door of the kitchen. His wife was standing near and and to the right of him and near the door of the kitchen. She took hold of the package, and it was exposed slightly to the view of Currier, who recognized it as a revolver box, and grabbed for it and attempted to take it from the accused and his wife. A struggle ensued, continuing through the door into the kitchen, where the accused took the revolver from the package. Currier had crowded in in an attempt to get the weapon and prevent the accused from shooting. During the struggle, the revolver was discharged by the accused, the bullet entering the body of Currier. Healy, who was in the bedroom, heard the shot, and ran into the kitchen where the accused stood near the center of the room with the revolver in his hand, while Currier was lying on the floor. Healy grappled with the accused, and they rolled over one another upon the floor, the revolver being discharged in the struggle, and the bullet entering the groin and leg of Healy. The accused freed himself, stood up and struck at Currier with a chair, and the latter then went through the bedroom into the hall. The accused endeavored to leave by the kitchen door into the hall, but dodged back as Currier fired through the door and then fired through the hall bedroom door also. Unable to escape by either door, the accused, pointing his weapon at Helay, who was then on the floor, backed to the window of the kitchen and escaped through it.

In addition, and in so far as it was inconsistent or contradictory in important respects with the state's evidence above summarized, the accused offered evidence to prove, and claimed to have proved, that, when the officers came to his apartment, he was twenty-one years of age, and his wife seventeen, and that she was then pregnant; that he had been arrested some time before in Chicago because of his connection with a so-called automobile ring, and had received a warning not to appear for trial, and that both he and his wife had been employed in New Haven for a month before the visit of the detectives; that, when he opened the door, Healy pushed roughly past him into the bedroom, with Currier following, and the accused retreated back into the room; that these men displayed no badge or other credential, and in no way identified themselves as officers; that, after obeying the order to dress, he gave his wife some money, and prepared to take leave of her, but, recalling that there was a pistol in the dresser, and that he had the key in his pocket, he asked his wife to take the box and put it in his trunk, and that he followed her into the kitchen, where, as she opened the trunk, a shot was fired, and he felt a pain in his leg, and, upon turning, saw Currier standing behind him with a drawn gun; that, fearing he was the victim of an attack related to the warning he had received in Chicago, the accused grabbed the box, which was immediately seized by Currier also, and a struggle ensued in which the accused gained possession of the weapon from the box; that he did not recall firing the revolver, due to the excitement; that, after being released by Currier, he was seized by some one else and thrown against the wall and onto the floor, but was suddenly released by the last assailant, and, after trying to escape by each of the doors into the hall, and being met with revolver fire by Currier, he backed to the window and escaped through it; that immediately thereafter he examined his leg and found a bullet wound, the scar of which he still carries; that prior to the assault he thought Currier and Healy were probably officers, but, when the assault began, he believed they were not police officers, but connected with the Chicago threat, and were intending to do him grave bodily harm; that he had no intent to kill either man but only to escape from them, and at the time believed himself to be in danger of serious bodily harm or death; and that the circumstances were then such that he honestly entertained the reasonable belief that he was the victim of a serious and unwarranted attack. Neither detective had, nor had there been issued at any time in Connecticut, a warrant for the arrest of the accused.

With this evidence before the jury, the accused claimed and asked the court to charge that the arrest by the detectives was unlawful; that, having committed no offense in this state, and as the only charge was made by the detectives and related to some offense committed in another state, the officers could only obtain authority to arrest him as a fugitive from justice by proceeding under our statutory provisions governing the arrest and extradition of such fugitives. General Statutes, Rev.1918, c. 342, § § 6699-6712, now General Statutes, Rev. 1930, § § 6545-6558.

It is provided in that chapter that, when a demand shall be made upon the Governor of this state by the executive authority of another state for the surrender of any person charged in such state with crime, the Governor may require a prosecuting officer to investigate the demand and report to him the situation and circumstances of the person charged and whether he ought to be surrendered, and, if the Governor shall find that the demand is conformable to law and the accused ought to be surrendered, he shall issue his warrant to any proper officer for his arrest and deliver it to an agent appointed to receive him. General Statutes, Rev. 1918, § § 6699-6703, now General Statutes, Rev. 1930, § § 6545-6549.

It is further provided that, when a person is found in this state charged with an offense in another state, and liable to extradition, then any judge of the superior court upon information by the state's Attorney or any city or police court having criminal jurisdiction, upon the complaint of the prosecuting Attorney, may issue a warrant for the arrest of the person charged and bring him before proper authority to answer to the complaint as in other criminal cases; but, before the...