State v. Fay

• Decision Date: 14 November 1963
• Docket Number: No. MV,MV
• Citation: 2 Conn.Cir.Ct. 369,199 A.2d 358
• Court: Circuit Court of Connecticut. Connecticut Circuit Court, Appellate Division
• Parties: STATE of Connecticut v. James P. FAY. 5-8695.

Page 358

199 A.2d 358

2 Conn.Cir.Ct. 369

STATE of Connecticut v. James P. FAY.

No. MV 5-8695.

Circuit Court of Connecticut, Appellate Division.

Argued Sept. 9, 1963.

Decided Nov. 14, 1963.

Harold H. Dean, Norwalk, for appellant (defendant).

Joseph H. Sylvester, Asst. Prosecuting Atty., for appellee (state).

LEVINE, Judge.

The defendant was convicted of speeding in violation of § 14-219 of the General Statutes and has appealed upon the sole ground that the court erred in 'refusing to allow the defendant to examine the radar speed detection equipment referred to in the attached exhibit, for the reason that the defendant was not entitled to examine said equipment prior to trial.' No finding of facts was requested, and the only evidence filed with this court concerns the defendant's request for a continuance to inspect the radar machine and the court's decision thereon.

The record before us discloses that the defendant was arrested on February 6, 1963, at 10:11 a. m. for speeding in the town of Orange. His arrest was the result of a radar 'clocking' of his speed. The record does not disclose that he made a motion to inspect the radar machine prior to trial or that he made any request of the state to produce the radar machine prior to trial or to have it present at the trial. His only request to examine the machine was made at the time his radar expert was on the stand testifying, and at that point only because his expert was not familiar with the model S-5 radar which was used by the police for the 'clocking' of the speed. The assignment of error states a refusal by the court to allow the defendant to examine the equipment at the trial. In his brief, the defendant assigns error in that he was denied an opportunity to inspect the radar speed detection equipment; he does not specify the time at which the request was made. The limited testimony before us discloses that the actual objection on trial was to the court's refusal to grant a postponement, during the trial, for the purpose of allowing the defendant's expert, who was then on the witness stand, an opportunity to examine the S-5 radar equipment.

The refusal to adjourn the trial to enable a party to procure further evidence is a matter of discretion of the court and is subject to review on appeal only if there was an abuse of the court's discretion. Lewis v. Havens, 40 Conn. 363, 370; see Rusch v. Cox, 130 Conn. 26, 32, 31 A.2d 457; State v. McLaughlin, 126 Conn. 257, 260, 10 A.2d 758; Gaul v. Baker, 108 Conn. 173, 179, 143 A. 51; Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Southbury, 95 Conn. 88, 93, 111 A. 360; Allen v. Chase, 81 Conn. 474, 478, 71 A. 367; Crotty v. City of Danbury, 79 Conn. 379, 383, 65 A. 147; DeWandelaer v. Sawdey, 78 Conn. 654, 657, 63 A. 446; State v. Lee, 69 Conn. 186, 193, 37 A. 75; White v. Town of Portland, 63 Conn. 18, 20, 26 A. 342.

What is now § 168 of the 1963 Practice Book provides 'for the production for inspection, or copying or other reproduction, of photographs, reports, papers, books, documents, maps and physical objects.' The rules for civil actions 'apply in criminal cases in so far as they are adapted to such proceedings.' Practice Book 1963, § 814. Section 800 of the 1963 Practice Book makes § 168 thereof available to this defendant, who had the right, prior to trial, to ask to inspect the S-5 radar equipment. The defendant relies on State v. Cocheo, 24 Conn.Sup. 377, 381, 190 A.2d 916, in support of his argument that he did not have the right to request inspection of the radar machine before trial. In that case, this court said that the discovery and pretrial 'rules...