State v. Ferraro
| Decision Date | 10 November 1970 |
| Citation | 160 Conn. 42,273 A.2d 694 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Frank FERRARO et al. |
Ira B. Grudberg, New Haven, for appellant (named defendant).
Robert E. Reilly, East Haven, for appellant (defendant Orlando).
David B. Salzman, Assistant State's Atty., with whom, on the brief, was Arnold Markle, State's Atty., for the appellee (state).
Before ALCORN, C.J., and HOUSE, COTTER, THIM and RYAN, JJ.
The defendant Marco Orlando and Frank Ferraro were found guilty, by a jury, of two counts of assault with intent to rob, in violation of § 53-28 of the General Statutes, and one count of burglary with personal violence in violation of § 53-69 of the General Statutes.
It is unnecessary to specify in detail the circumstances of the offenses of which they were convicted. It is sufficient to note that the state produced evidence to prove, and claimed to have proved, that on October 9, 1966, at approximately 9 p.m., the defendants and another man violently assaulted Louis Gold, Sr., and Patricia Gold, his wife, in their home in the town of Woodbridge; that while the offenses were being committed the defendants and the third man were wearing ski masks; that two of them were holding guns; that a police officer was dispatched to the scene; that the three men fled before the officer could apprehend any of them; and that the defendants were arrested some time later.
Each defendant filed a brief in this appeal in support of the assignments of error. Upon a review of the entire record as presented to us we find that a decision upon one assignment of error applicable to both defendants is dispositive of the appeal. It is claimed that the court erred in refusing to strike the testimony of Edward Sapienza regarding pistols and ammunition a New York City detective found in an apartment Sapienza shared with Orlando.
During the course of the trial, Sapienza was called as an alibi witness by Orlando. He testified that on October 9, 1966, the date of these crimes, he was living with Orlando in an apartment on Brooklyn, New York, and that Orlando was in the apartment during the day of October 9. He also testified that Ferraro had lived in the apartment until June or July of 1966.
Upon cross-examination by the state's attorney, Sapienza testified, over the objection of defense counsel, that in May of 1967, seven and one-half months after the commission of the instant crimes, a New York City detective searched his bedroom and in a ceiling of a closet the detective found pistols and ammunition and a ski mask. This testimony was admitted upon the representation of the state's attorney that it would be 'tied up' to this particular case. The court refused to admit testimony of the detective concerning the objects found in the ceiling of Sapienza's apartment. Testimony offered by the state in an effort to connect a pistol found in the ceiling with one used in the attack on the Golds was excluded upon objection by the defendants. The state was thus unable to connect to this case the pistols and ammunition and a ski mask found in the apartment. There being no connection, the defense requested that Sapienza's testimony be stricken, and that the jury be instructed to disregard it. The court indicated that it did not see how Sapienza's testimony had any bearing on the case and instructed counsel not to make any comments on the matter, or to argue it to the jury. The court declined to strike the testimony and deferred ruling on the request to charge the jury. After the charge, defendants excepted to the court's failure to charge the jury concerning Sapienza's testimony.
There was nothing in the record nor in the evidence contained in the appendices to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Piskorski
...where there was no evidence presented suggesting that the shotgun, Exhibit BBB, had any connection with the case. See State v. Ferraro, 160 Conn. 42, 45, 273 A.2d 694. In addition to the testimony and evidence noted previously, a witness for the state identified items found at the scene of ......
-
State v. Turcio
... ... As with Acklin, the testimony in Johnson went directly to establishing a critical and disputed issue in the case-the defendants' access to the dynamite-the means of committing the crime. The state never "connected" the defendants with the dynamite seized. In State v. Ferraro, 160 Conn ... Page 761 ... 42, 273 A.2d 694 (1970), this court followed Johnson, supra, and remanded for a new trial in a situation where the state offered evidence as to the defendants' possession of guns and ammunition after an armed robbery, but never tied the guns and ammunition in ... ...
-
State v. Coleman
...tend to indicate criminal propensity when those articles are not connected to the commission of the crime charged. State v. Ferraro, 160 Conn. 42, 45, 273 A.2d 694 (1970); State v. Johnson, 160 Conn. 28, 31, 273 A.2d 702 (1970). Thus, Stephenson's testimony concerning the three knives found......
-
State v. Onofrio
...connecting the (rifles with the shooting of the victim)." State v. Johnson, 160 Conn. 28, 32, 273 A.2d 702, 704; see State v. Ferraro, 160 Conn. 42, 45, 273 A.2d 694. Absent such a connection, the balance of scales clearly tips against the probative value of the The state nevertheless conte......