State v. Gotsch
| Decision Date | 17 April 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. CR,CR |
| Court | Circuit Court of Connecticut. Connecticut Circuit Court, Appellate Division |
| Parties | , 23 Conn.Supp. 395 STATE of Connecticut v. John GOTSCH. 2-0417 |
Sigmund L. Miller, Bridgeport, for appellant-defendant.
Salvatore C. DePiano, Asst. Pros. Atty., for appellee State.
The information charged the defendant with a violation of § 19-65 of the General Statutes. In response to the defendant's motion that the information be made more specific by setting forth (a) when, (b) where, and (c) how the statute was violated, a bill of particulars was furnished, stating that the alleged violations were committed on January 24, 1961, January 25, 1961, January 26, 1961, January 27, 1961, and January 31, 1961, in apartments numbered 112 and 412 respectively of the premises known and designated as No. 422 West Avenue, Bridgeport, Connecticut, by the failure to furnish heat and hot water. The defendant entered a plea of not guilty and finally elected to be tried to the court without a jury. The defendant filed an appeal from the judgment finding him guilty, stating that he desired to have reviewed the court's conclusions upon the facts. Cir.Ct.Rule 7.21.1.
The defendant has assigned error in the denial of his motion for corrections in certain paragraphs of the finding, in the conclusions of the court as being unsupported by the subordinate facts, and in the conclusion of the court that upon all of the evidence he was guilty of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. Upon this last assignment of error, we determine upon all of the evidence whether the court erred in holding that guilt was established by the requisite degree of proof. It is, therefore, unnecessary to consider in detail the claims of error directed to the finding. State v. Frost, 105 Conn. 326, 332, 135 A. 446.
Stratbridge Realty Company, a nonresident copartnership, owns 12 parcels of land variously situated in the towns of Stratford and Bridgeport with 24 buildings thereon which contain approximately 900 apartments. The defendant is the rental agent of Stratbridge Realty Company and the manager in charge of their office at 465 Golden Hill Street, Bridgeport. The property at 422 West Avenue in Bridgeport is one of twenty-four buildings owned by Stratbridge Realty Company. It is a four-story building of brick construction containing sixteen apartments. Apartment 112 is on the first floor and apartment 412 is directly over it on the fourth floor. The rental agreements required that the landlord furnish heat and hot water. It is heated through a central steam heating plant fired with coal by hand, with radiators in each apartment. Hot water is furnished through a separate hot-water boiler also fired with coal by hand. From January 24 through January 31, 1961, inclusive, both the heating boiler and hot-water boiler were in operation, and the fires were never out during that time.
On January 24, 1961, an inspector from the city health department personally notified the defendant that a temperature of 58 degrees Fahrenheit was recorded in apartments 112 and 412 of 422 West Avenue that morning. The defendant immediately dispatched another employee of Stratbridge Realty Company to these apartments with instructions 'to handle the problem.' On January 25, 1961, the defendant was summoned to the office of the prosecuting attorney after complaint by the health inspector that the temperature read 60 degrees in apartment 112 and 59 degrees in apartment 412 in midmorning of that day. An assistant prosecuting attorney ordered the defendant to furnish heat to 68 degrees and hot water to these apartments by January 28, 1961. The defendant requested that the order be stayed for two weeks or at least ten days in order to change the coal being used from anthracite to bituminous. The request was denied, because for 18 days during January, 1961, inclusive of all the days specified in the bill of particulars, the weather was unusually severe, with temperatures continuously below freezing. The defendant promised compliance with the order.
On January 26, the temperature in both apartments in late morning had risen to 62 degrees. On that same morning, bituminous coal was delivered to 422 West Avenue. At 2:30 p. m. on January 27, the temperature in apartment 112 was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Saunders v. Firtel
...(wilful destruction of bridge means intentional destruction of bridge and intent to cause injury); State v. Gotsch, 1 Conn.Cir.Ct. 263, 23 Conn.Supp. 395, 398-99, 184 A.2d 56 (1962) (wilful commonly means intentional, as opposed to accidental, but in penal statute it means with evil intent)......
-
Doe v. Marselle, 15312
... ... KATZ, Associate Judge ... The dispositive issue on appeal is whether in order to state a cause of action under ... Page 836 ... General Statutes § 19a-590 1 for a violation of General Statutes § 19a-583 (AIDS statute), 2 the ... 671, 678-79, 458 A.2d 362 (1983) (wilful destruction of bridge means intentional destruction of bridge and intent to cause injury); State v. Gotsch, 23 Conn.Supp. 395, 398-99, 184 A.2d 56 (1962) (wilful commonly means intentional, as opposed to accidental, but in penal statute it means with evil ... ...
-
John Doe v. Flanigan
...(wilful destruction of bridge means intentional destruction of bridge and intent to cause injury); State v. Gotsch , 23 Conn. Supp. 395, 398–99, 184 A.2d 56, 1 Conn.Cir.Ct. 263 (1962) (wilful commonly means intentional, as opposed to accidental, but in penal statute it means with evil inten......
-
State v. Neubauer
...to guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, upon all the evidence.' State v. Guilfoyle, 109 Conn. 124, 139, 145 A. 761, 766; State v. Gotsch, 23 Conn.Sup. 395, 396, 184 A.2d 56; State v. Riley, 24 Conn.Sup. 235, 238, 189 A.2d The evidence discloses that the police officers were on the defendant's p......