State v. Gosselin
| Decision Date | 19 August 1975 |
| Citation | 169 Conn. 377,363 A.2d 100 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Glen GOSSELIN. |
Irwin A. Snyder, Special Public Defender, for appellant (defendant).
Ernest J. Diette, Jr., Asst. State's Atty., with whom, on the brief, were Arnold Markle, State's Atty., and Michael Dearington, Asst. State's Atty., for appellee (state).
Before HOUSE, C.J., and LOISELLE, MacDONALD, LONGO and BARBER, JJ.
The defendant, Glen Gosselin, was charged in a two-count information with the crimes of attempted burglary, second degree, and conspiracy. He was tried by a jury and found guilty on both counts. 1
The defendant assigns as error the denial by the court of the 'defendant's motions for directed verdict at the close of the State's case, and at the close of the defense.' He also assigns as error certain rulings by the court on the admissibility of evidence and attacks portions of the charge to the jury.
In his brief, the defendant attacks the court's charge. He has not assigned the charge as error; the charge is not included in the finding, nor does the appendix indicate the nature of the defendant's complaints as to the court's charge. Hence, this court does not have sufficient information before it to permit a review of this claim. Practice Book § 652.
The defendant assigns as error the admission by the court of the testimony of Mrs. Cecile Wardell. She testified that on a night, the date of which she could not specify, she had heard a knock on the door of the house on Green Hill Road where she was living. When she went to the door, she found no one there but heard the sound of footsteps as though people were running away. Mrs. Wardell's testimony did not include hearsay evidence. The issue of the relevancy of this testimony,
The defendant assigns as error the failure of the court to strike as hearsay the testimony of Craig R. Philippe, the principal witness against the defendant, placing the date of the offense as January 29, 1972. This assignment of error has no merit. The witness testified on cross-examination that he had been called from a party which he knew had been held the night of the last Saturday in January and when the police had showed him a calendar he had picked out January 29, 1972. The verification of that date by reference to a calendar merely confirmed a fact of which the court could have taken judicial notice. See State v. Morris, 47 Conn. 179, 180; Holden & Daly, Conn. Evidence § 33.
The defendant claims error in the trial court's denial of his motions for a 'directed verdict,' after the state had rested and at the close of all the evidence. We treat the first motion as a motion to dismiss. In a criminal case, a verdict will be directed only when 'the reasoning mind could not reasonably reach a conclusion other than that the evidence, under the law, is not sufficient to justify a finding of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.' State v. Torello, 100 Conn. 637, 643, 124 A. 375, 377; General Statutes § 54-89; Maltbie, Conn.App.Proc. § 203. Denial of a motion for a directed verdict 'is reviewed on the evidence alone and not on the finding.' State v. Amendola, 152 Conn. 166, 168, 204 A.2d 836, 838.
Under the appellate rules in effect at the time the appeal was taken, all evidence which was material to the issues on appeal was required to be printed in the appendices to the briefs. Practice Book §§ 645, 721. Set out in narrative form in the state's appendix is the testimony of Philippe, the principal witness against the defendant. Philippe testified that on January 29, 1972, a friend had called him out of a party he was attending and told him someone wanted to see him. In a car parked outside, Philippe and another individual met the defendant and a friend. The defendant and his friend asked Philippe and the other individual if they would steal some gold coins from a house on Green Hill Road in the town of Madison. The individual with Philippe refused and returned to the party. The defendant then drove Philippe and the other person to the house, where they took a tire iron from the car and approached the house while the defendant drove up and down the street waiting for their return. The two individuals knocked on the door to see if anyone was home. Hearing the voice of someone who was coming to the door, the two ran back to the street where they were picked up by the defendant. It is clear from the testimony of the state's witnesses recited above that there was sufficient evirecited to submit the case to the jury and to sustain its verdict of guilty on both counts, as all the elements required by the statutes were presented by the state. 2 By driving Philippe and another to the house, the defendant was guilty of conspiracy in that he committed an overt act in pursuance of their...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. DeFreitas
... ... At the beginning of the trial, the court denied the defendant Brant's motion to be designated cocounsel. Although an objection was made to this ruling, the issue has not been raised on appeal and thus need not be examined by this court. State v. Gosselin, 169 Conn. 377, 378, 363 A.2d 100; Raffile v. Stamford Housewrecking, Inc., 168 Conn. 299, 303, 362 A.2d 879. At the time the trial court denied Brant's motion to appear as cocounsel, he also informed Brant, in the presence of DeFreitas, of his constitutional right to represent himself. Neither ... ...
-
State v. Brown
...by the summary of evidence printed in the appendices to the briefs. State v. Hart, 169 Conn. 428, 430, 363 A.2d 80; State v. Gosselin, 169 Conn. 377, 379, 363 A.2d 100. From this evidence the jury could have reasonably found the following: On March 18, 1970, Detective Daniel F. Harvey, an u......
-
State v. Gaynor
... ... See State v. Reardon, 172 Conn. 593, 597, 376 A.2d 65 (1977); ... Hamill v. Neikind, 171 Conn. 357, 358, 370 A.2d 959 (1976); State v. Gosselin, 169 Conn. 377, 381, 363 A.2d 100 (1975). It is for the jury to untangle the knotted and sometimes broken lines of testimony and we will disturb their fact finding only where there is insufficient evidence to justify a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable[182 Conn. 505] doubt. State v. Ortiz, ... ...
-
State v. Kerr
... ... See State ... 107 Conn.App. 424 ... v. Garner, 270 Conn. 458, 472-73, 853 A.2d 478 (2004); State v. Gosselin, 169 Conn. 377, 381, 363 A.2d 100 (1975) ... Accordingly, on the basis of the evidence presented at trial and the reasonable inferences that could be drawn therefrom, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence from which the jury reasonably could have found beyond a ... ...