State v. Ford
| Decision Date | 10 July 1929 |
| Citation | 109 Conn. 490,146 A. 828 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. FORD. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; Arthur F. Ells, Judge.
Emil Ford was convicted of causing the death of a person by his gross and willful misconduct and negligence in the operation of a motor vehicle, and he appeals. No error.
That accused motorist left bodies of pedestrians lying in road after striking them may be considered in determining guilt.
Matthew H. Kenealy, Jackson Palmer, C. Milton Fessenden, and Daniel E. Ryan, all of Stamford, for appellant.
Lorin W. Willis, Asst. State's Atty., and William H. Comley State's Atty., both of Bridgeport, for the State.
Argued before WHEELER, C.J., and MALTBIE, HAINES, HINMAN, and BANKS JJ.
The accused contends that the evidence produced upon the trial did not establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. He has followed the procedure outlined in State v. Frost, 105 Conn. 326, 135 A. 446, and assigned this reason of appeal and that the subordinate facts do not support the conclusion of the court, also claiming that the finding should be corrected by striking out certain paragraphs and adding paragraphs of the draft finding. The claim is made that certain facts were found without evidence and that certain admitted or undisputed facts were not found.
The state claimed that Shirley Trine came to her death by being struck by an automobile which was being operated by the defendant in a grossly reckless and negligent manner. That is found in paragraph 15 of the finding, which is in reality a conclusion from the subordinate facts and will be treated as such. As to the subordinate facts, there was actually little dispute, and the court could reasonably have found and did find them as follows: At about 8:15 on the evening of September 19, 1928, the bodies of two girls were found upon the concrete pavement of Sound Beach avenue, Greenwich, about 75 feet south of the corner of Vista avenue. Both of the girls were injured by having been struck from behind by some moving object, and one of them, Shirley Trine died shortly thereafter. The girls had been walking in a southerly direction along the westerly edge of the concrete pavement of the road, there being no sidewalk at that point. Neither of them saw what struck them, nor did they hear or have any warning of an approaching automobile. In the road about 50 feet south of Vista avenue were found pieces of glass from an automobile headlight, and about 25 feet south of the glass there were two blood stains, one 6 and one 7 1/2 feet from the westerly edge of the concrete pavement. It had been a day of violent rain and wind, and was raining slightly at the time of the accident. There was an incandescent street light at the corner of Sound Beach avenue and Vista avenue which was lighted, and there were several large shade trees on the west side of the street which cast shadows on the roadway. On the west side of Sound Beach avenue just south of the corner of Vista avenue there was a large puddle of water and mud about 25 feet long, extending about 5 feet into the highway. About 12 minutes past 8 the accused was seen driving a Ford car at a moderate rate of speed southerly on Sound Beach avenue about three quarters of a mile north of the scene of the accident, and about 15 minutes past 8 was seen driving his car from Sound Beach avenue into the Shore road about 300 yards south of the scene of the accident, with the glass of his right headlight broken. On the following morning his car was found in his garage with the glass of the right headlight shattered, the radiator slightly bent back, and a small dent in the hood. One of the pieces of glass found at the scene of the accident exactly fitted into the broken and irregular edge of a piece of similar glass still remaining in the rim of the right headlight of the car. There was a conflict in the evidence as to whether the street light at the corner was lighted at the time of the accident, and the finding that it was lighted must stand. As to the other subordinate facts, there was no serious dispute. Counsel for the accused concede that the subordinate facts support the conclusion of the trial court that the death of Shirley Trine was caused by coming into contact with the car of the accused. They strenuously contend that they do not support its conclusion that her death was caused by the gross negligence of the accused in the operation of the car, and that the evidence failed to establish that fact beyond a reasonable doubt. Another fact which, though not expressly found, is an obvious and necessary conclusion from the facts found, is that the accused, after striking these girls, continued on his way, leaving the bodies of the two girls lying in the road. It is also found that upon the trial the accused did not take the stand as a witness, and the court states its conclusion that this failure of the accused to testify under the circumstances disclosed by the evidence was a fact which it could not dismiss from its mind, and which strengthened the court's conclusion that the accused was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
The court found that the accused was guilty of gross negligence. Such a finding, as in the case of a finding of ordinary negligence by the court or jury, is as a general rule conclusive unless unsupported by facts or resulting from the application of an incorrect rule of law or standard of conduct. The record does not indicate that the trial court failed to apply the correct standard of conduct in reaching its conclusion that the car of the accused was operated in a grossly reckless and negligent manner, nor is this conclusion unsupported by the subordinate facts found. The assignment of error that the subordinate facts do not support the conclusion of the court must therefore fail.
The principal ground of appeal is that the evidence does not establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Though we are not confined to the finding of facts in our consideration of this ground of appeal, there is, as already stated, no serious dispute that the essential facts are as above narrated. The only testimony as to the occurrences at the precise moment that the girls were struck was that of the survivor of them, who testified that they were walking south on the right-hand side of the road, and that, just as they were passing under the street light near the corner of Vista avenue, they were struck by something. That it was the car of the accused that struck them is demonstrated by the evidence as to his movements, the shattered headlight of his car, and the fact that the piece of glass found in the street exactly fitted into the edge of a piece of similar glass in the rim of the headlight. The concrete roadway was 30 feet wide, and there was no traffic upon it other than defendant's car. There was no sidewalk at this point, and the defendant, who lived in the neighborhood, might reasonably have expected the presence of pedestrians upon the westerly edge of the concrete road where these girls were walking and where he was operating his car. The car came upon them from behind without warning of any kind, and there is no indication that the accused saw them, as he should have done had he been keeping a reasonable lookout, or if he did, made any effort to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hayes
... ... None of ... these defendants took the stand. While it is true that they ... were under no legal obligation to do so, the jury, in ... weighing the evidence, were entitled to draw an unfavorable ... inference from their failure to testify. State v ... Ford, 109 Conn. 490, 496, 498, 146 A. 828; State v ... Heno, 119 Conn. 29, 34, 35, 174 A. 181,94 A.L.R. 701; ... Wigmore, Evidence, 3d Ed., § 2272, 2272a. As regards these ... defendants, we cannot hold that a refusal to set the verdict ... aside was erroneous as a matter of law ... ...
-
State v. Asherman
...process to extract from the person's own lips an admission of his guilt which would then take the place of evidence." State v. Ford, 109 Conn. 490, 496, 146 A. 828 (1929). We have also noted that compulsion which makes a suspect or accused the source of real or physical evidence has been he......
-
State v. Ferrara
...state v. beaulieu,164 Conn. 620, 632, 325 A.2d 263 (1973); State v. Miller, 154 Conn. 622, 628, 228 A.2d 136 (1967); State v. Ford, 109 Conn. 490, 496, 146 A. 828 (1929). "The flight of the person accused of crime is a circumstance which, when considered together with all the facts of the c......
-
State v. Rosa
...of guilt.' State v. Beaulieu, 164 Conn. 620, 632, 325 A.2d 263, 269; State v. Miller, 154 Conn. 622, 628, 228 A.2d 136; State v. Ford, 109 Conn. 490, 496, 146 A. 828. 'The flight of the person accused of crime is a circumstance which, when considered together with all the facts of the case,......