State v. Gordon
| Decision Date | 28 May 1957 |
| Citation | 132 A.2d 568,144 Conn. 399 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Monroe S. GORDON. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
Jerome Hershey, New Haven, for appellant (defendant).
George R. Tiernan, Prosecuting Atty., New Haven, for appellee (state).
Before O'SULLIVAN, C. J., and BALDWIN, WYNNE, DALY, and KING, JJ.
In his appeal from a conviction of speeding the defendant claims, in effect, that the court erred as a matter of law in reaching the conclusion that he violated the applicable statute, § 2407 of the General Statutes.
The finding discloses the following undisputed facts: On April 9, 1956, at dawn, about 4:45 a. m., the defendant, while alone in his 1956 Chrysler New Yorker automobile, was operating it in a southerly direction on the Wilbur Cross Parkway. His car, equipped with power brakes, power steering and puncture proof tires, was three months old and had been driven about 8000 miles. During the time he was driving it from a point in Meriden at or near the entrances to route 5 and the truck route to a place just south of the route 5 exit in Wallingford, a distance of from six to seven miles, he passed three cars and the speed of his car was clocked by a state police officer at seventy to seventy-five miles per hour. The officer was driving a 1955 Ford. Its speedometer had not functioned properly during a short period in December, 1955, and was not tested or calibrated between December, 1955, and April 19, 1956. The weather was fair. Traffic was light. Visibility was good. The highway was dry. The posted speed limit for vehicles traveling on the Wilbur Cross Parkway is fifty-five miles per hour. The lane of the parkway upon which southbound vehicles travel is twenty-six feet wide. The defendant traveled on the parkway daily, except Sundays, leaving his home in New Britain at 4 a. m. and arriving at the place where he worked in New Haven at approximately 5:30 a. m. He had driven automobiles since 1923.
The trial court concluded that the defendant operated a motor vehicle upon a public highway of this state at a rate of speed greater than was reasonable, having regard to the width, traffic and use of the highway, the intersection of streets and the weather conditions, in violation of § 2407 of the General Statutes, the relevant provisions of which are printed in the footnote. 1 Each of the two sentences contained in subsection (a) of the statute clearly states a separate interdict. The first prohibits the operation of a motor vehicle 'at a rate of speed greater than is reasonable.' The second forbids the operation of a motor vehicle 'at such a rate of speed as to endanger the life of any occupant of such motor vehicle.' The defendant contends that the facts found do not support the court's conclusion that he operated a motor vehicle at a speed greater than was reasonable, thus committing the offense defined in the first sentence of subsection (a) of the statute. This claim is without merit.
In addition,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Russo
...of posted speed limit signs provided unambiguous notice of the degree of care to be exercised. See generally State v. Gordon, 144 Conn. 399, 402, 132 A.2d 568 (1957). Thus, we hold that § 53a-58a is not void for vagueness. Accord, State v. Ashton, supra, and cases cited therein; note, 12 A.......
-
State v. Colombo
...'is actually unreasonable under all the circumstances.' Clement v. DelVecchio, 140 Conn. 274, 277, 99 A.2d 123, 125; State v. Gordon, 144 Conn. 399, 402, 132 A.2d 568; Hammarlund v. Troiano, 146 Conn. 470, 472, 152 A.2d The jury must necessarily rely upon circumstantial evidence, and they a......
-
State v. Vogel
...abstract propositions on appeal. The measure of speed is for the trier to decide upon the evidence presented on trial. State v. Gordon, 144 Conn. 399, 402, 132 A.2d 568. The jury's duty was to ascertain the speed at which the defendant was moving through the radar zone in Waterford. By thei......
-
State v. Sivin
...to rebut the prima facie evidence of the unreasonableness of a speed over the posted limit. In the leading case of State v. Gordon, 144 Conn. 399, 132 A.2d 568, where the conditions were favorable, weather fair, traffic light, visibility good, highway dry, the court held that the excess of ......