State v. Foord
| Decision Date | 18 April 1955 |
| Citation | 142 Conn. 285,113 A.2d 591 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. William M. FOORD et al. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
James W. Carpenter, Ernest W. McCormick, Hartford, Robert L. Fay, Wallingford, with whom was Ernest A. Inglis, Jr., Hartford, for appellants (defendants).
Douglass B. Wright, Asst. State's Atty., Hartford, with whom was Albert S. Bill, State's Atty., Hartford, for appellee (state).
Before O'SULLIVAN and DALY, JJ., and SHEA, ALCORN, and PHILLIPS, Superior Court Judges, concurring.
O'SULLIVAN, Associate Justice.
The first count of the information alleges that the defendant William M. Foord violated § 8487 of the General Statutes in that he received a bribe as a member of the General Assembly; the second count alleges that the defendant Clifford B. Backes violated § 8488 in that he attempted to improperly influence legislation. Each defendant elected trial to the court and each, after full hearing, was found guilty as charged. Both defendants have appealed to this court. Their joint assignments of error are predicated upon the denial of requested changes in the finding, upon the overruling of their claims of law and upon the conclusion reached by the trier that each was guilty as charged. This last assignment raises the ultimate question whether upon all the evidence the court was justified in finding the defendants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and makes unnecessary a detailed consideration of the claims of error directed against the finding. State v. Serkau, 128 Conn. 153, 154, 20 A.2d 725; State v. MacCullough, 115 Conn. 306, 307, 161 A. 512. We have given consideration to the finding, however, for the purpose of showing the specific facts found by the court upon conflicting evidence. State v. Dziob, 133 Conn. 167, 168, 48 A.2d 377.
The evidence, including that shown by the finding to have been accepted by the court, supplemented by inferences it could reasonably have drawn, may be summarized as follows: M. Backes' Sons, Inc., a family corporation, founded by the grandfather of the defendant Backes and located at Wallingford, has been manufacturing fireworks since 1876. The defendant Backes entered the service of the concern in 1919 and has been its president since 1934. The defendant Foord has practiced law in Litchfield for many years. He was elected by that town to the state house of representatives for the sessions of 1949, 1951 and 1953. Backes and Foord first became acquainted when they appeared at a hearing on a fireworks bill before a legislative committee of the 1939 General Assembly. Foord attended on behalf of the American Legion. Although their interest in regulatory legislation arose from divergent sources, they joined in urging the committee to report favorably upon a comprehensive bill. Such a report was subsequently made, and during that session the General Assembly adopted its first public act upon the subject of fireworks. General Statutes, Cum.Sup.1939, § 946e. The defendants again met in 1946, when Backes was called as a witness for an accused person who was being prosecuted by Foord as grand juror. The case concerned an alleged sale of illegal fireworks. It developed during the course of that trial that, due to the lack of a definition of the word firecracker, an ambiguity existed in the act of 1939. Foord resolved to prepare for the next legislature something to remove the ambiguity, and Backes said that he would co-operate by giving advice on technical matters. They collaborated upon a draft of a proposed law which was introduced at the 1947 session but failed of passage. At the following session in 1949, Foord, as a member of the house, reintroduced the draft and it was enacted into law. Sup.1949, § 434a. It amended the 1939 act by defining 'firecracker.'
In June, 1950, the state police took the position that certain products of the Backes company did not conform to statutory restrictions upon firecrackers as they were defined by law. Backes then retained Foord to discuss the matter with the state police, and Foord thereupon conferred with Captain Ross V. Urquhart on the subject. They decided that the existing law was inadequate and that a new bill should be submitted to the General Assembly of 1951. On June 30, 1950, the Backes company paid Foord $50 for his services and $7.80 for expenses incurred in connection with these discussions.
About this time, the American Pyrotechnics Association, at Backes' urging, decided to prepare a uniform law on the subject of fireworks. Backes, who agreed to undertake the work, had the proposed law in such shape that by January, 1951, the association was able to print it in booklet form and distribute it to legislators around the country. In the fall of 1950 Backes had engaged Foord to assist in connection with the proposed law.
In November, 1950, Foord was elected a representative from Litchfield to the General Assembly. Shortly after it convened in January, 1951, he received from Backes a letter regarding a new fireworks bill to be submitted. In the letter Backes pointed out the desirability of obtaining the active support of the state police for the bill. Foord thereupon prepared a draft of a bill for an act keyed to Connecticut statutes but based on the bill prepared by Backes for the American Pyrotechnics Association. Foord sent a copy of his draft to Captain Urquhart. From then on until the following May, Foord and Backes corresponded extensively about the proposed legislation and met on several occasions to discuss it. During this period they also conferred with various officials in the state police concerning the subject. Before the last day set for the introduction of bills in the session, Foord introduced house bill No. 855 for the regulation of fireworks. The bill was referred to the judiciary committee, to which Foord had previously been appointed, and by that committee was referred to a subcommittee of three, the chairmanship of which he had secured for himself. Foord obtained this assignment to the subcommittee so that he could promote the bill in which he was personally interested.
On March 1, 1951, Foord billed the Backes company for $1500 for professional services. The amount was suggested by Backes. The company paid the bill on March 7.
On March 22, Foord offered for legislative action a redrafted bill as a substitute for the original house bill No. 855. This followed receipt by him of a copy of a bill proposed by Captain Urquhart, who thereafter was prevented by illness from further activity concerning the pending legislation. Before offering the substitute bill, Foord and Backes had analyzed the state police proposal. Immediately thereafter Foord prepared a digest and explanation of his substitute bill. The explanation stated that the bill was the result of co-operative effort between the state police, a manufacturer of fireworks, a wholesale dealer therein, and himself. When Backes received a copy of the bill, he wrote to Foord stating that he was anxious to know how Urquhart reacted to the changes which had been made in the latter's proposal and expressing the hope that Urquhart would be satisfied with them. On April 6, Backes again wrote to Foord suggesting certain additional alterations in the bill. Foord, in reply, said that he would bring them before the subcommittee. After a hearing at which Foord was active in pressing for its adoption, the substitute bill was submitted on May 11 with a favorable report to the judiciary committee as a whole. Under suspension of the rules, requested by Foord when the matter came up for action before the house, the bill was passed by that chamber and subsequently by the senate. This occurred in the last days of the session. When a member of the house objected to suspension of the rules, Foord assured him that the bill was all right and had been approved by the commissioner of state police, although Foord had never discussed the bill with the commissioner and the latter had never seen or approved it. As finally passed, the bill, which limited the length of firecrackers to two inches and their diameter to seven-sixteenths of an inch, gave the Backes company a temporary monopoly in the manufacture of firecrackers. The new act became effective on June 12, 1951, and appeared as §§ 814b to 826b, inclusive of the 1951 Cumulative Supplement. Backes had not at any time during the session considered employing a lobbyist to represent his interests. He relied on Foord to carry out his purposes, feeling that the latter was accomplishing everything that Backes could have wanted from a lobbyist.
Approximately a month after the General Assembly had adjourned, a Hartford newspaper published a story to the effect that certain wholesalers and retailers were complaining because the new law had given the Backes company a monopoly of the two-inch firecracker. The paper commented on the fact that the law had been sponsored by Foord, 'a paid counsel on at least one occasion of the Backes firm.' When Foord was asked about the story he admitted that he had formerly acted as a paid attorney for the Backes company but added that, while the act did create a temporary monopoly for the company, that result had been unintentional. About the same time, Backes told the writer of the newspaper story that his company had a temporary monopoly under the act because Subsequently, Governor Lodge asked the attorney general to make an investigation of alleged irregularities in the passage of the act. On July 11, 1951, during the course of the investigation, Foord filed with the attorney general an affidavit...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Moye
...draw reasonable and logical inferences from the facts proven. State v. Pundy, 147 Conn. 7, 12, 156 A.2d 193 (1959); State v. Foord, 142 Conn. 285, 294, 113 A.2d 591 (1955). Our inquiry is directed to whether, on the facts established and inferences reasonably to be drawn therefrom, the verd......
-
State v. Little
...tends to support, and is consistent with the defendant's guilt and inconsistent with any other rational conclusion." State v. Foord, 142 Conn. 285, 295, 113 A.2d 591 [1955]; State v. Kelsey, 160 Conn. 551, 553, 274 A.2d 151 [1970]; State v. Reid, 154 Conn. 37, 40, 221 A.2d 258 [1966]; State......
-
State v. Dumlao
...by the evidence it deems to be reasonable and logical. State v. Tatem, 194 Conn. 594, 598, 483 A.2d 1087 (1984); State v. Foord, 142 Conn. 285, 294, 113 A.2d 591 (1955). The Supreme Court has on infrequent occasion referred in dictum to the claim advanced by the defendant here. See State v.......
-
State v. Carpenter, 13630
...with the innocence of the accused must prevail. State v. Guilfoyle, 109 Conn. 124, 139, 145 A. 761 [1929]." State v. Foord, 142 Conn. 285, 294, 113 A.2d 591 (1955); State v. Morrill, supra, 193 Conn. at 610, 478 A.2d 994. "The trier may not reach a conclusion of guilt where the facts, estab......