State v. Goetz

• Citation: 76 A. 1000,83 Corm. 437
• Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut
• Decision Date: 12 July 1910
• Parties: STATE v. GOETZ.

76 A. 1000

83 Corm. 437

STATE

v. GOETZ.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

July 12, 1910.

Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; William H. Williams, Judge.

Theodore C. Goetz was convicted of manslaughter, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Nichols C. Downs and William H. Comley, Jr., for appellant.

Stiles Judson, State's Atty., for the State.

HALL, C. J. The information alleges that at Stamford, on the 9th of January, 1909, the defendant feloniously and willfully made an assault upon one Sarah Howe by feloniously driving upon her a certain motor vehicle which the accused was driving along the highway; and thereby feloniously inflicted upon her certain mortal wounds of which she died; and thereby did feloniously kill the said Sarah Howe, and did thereby commit the crime of manslaughter against the peace and contrary to the statute in such case made and provided. The accused pleaded not guilty. The state claimed to have proved these facts: At about 7 o'clock in the evening of the day alleged the deceased and her daughter and another person were standing, at a place lighted by a street lamp, upon a cross-walk, on the north side of the trolley track on Main street, which runs east and west in the city of Stamford, waiting for a westerly bound trolley car. The accused, who is a chauffeur, was upon a pleasure trip in company with another person, and was driving or coasting an automobile at a reckless and dangerous rate of speed down a hill on Main street on the north side of said street, and going in a westerly direction. He saw the deceased and the persons with her, and believed they were waiting for the westerly bound trolley car which he had Just passed; and in order to pass them he, without reducing his speed, turned his automobile southerly and upon the trolley track, when the accused and her daughter, alarmed and confused by the rapidly approaching car and its glaring headlights, endeavored to cross the tracks to the south. The accused observing this movement of the deceased and her daughter turned his car sharply to the left, endeavoring, as he said, "to beat them out," when his car skidded along the track, and turned about and overturned, striking the deceased and her daughter and throwing the deceased forward some forty feet, and causing her death. The accused claimed to have proved that he was running down the hill from 18 to 20 miles an hour; that he turned his car to the left when he observed the deceased and those with her, because it was apparent that there was not sufficient room between them and the gutter to enable him to pass on the right; that Mrs. Howe and her daughter suddenly ran toward the south when the automobile was within 10 feet of the cross-walk, and that he thereupon turned sharply to the south and applied the emergency brake; that he exercised his best judgment in attempting to avoid hitting them, and that the course which he pursued was the most prudent one which he could have taken under the circumstances.

Upon the trial the defendant's counsel asked of several witnesses called by defendant, what the character and reputation of the accused was as an automobile driver, and whether he was a careful driver. These questions were excluded upon the state's objection, but these witnesses were permitted to testify to the general good character, reputation, and habits of the accused. The exclusion of these inquiries is among the reasons of appeal.

It is apparent from the language of the charge that the accused was permitted to testify to his experience and ability as a chauffeur, and that the state offered no evidence upon these subjects. But evidence of his reputation as a skillful chauffeur,...