State v. Griswold
Citation | 200 A.2d 479,151 Conn. 544 |
Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
Decision Date | 28 April 1964 |
Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Estelle T. GRISWOLD. STATE of Connecticut v. C. Lee BUXTON. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
Catherine G. Roraback, New Haven, for appellants (defendants).
Julius Maretz, Pros. Atty., and Joseph B. Clark, Asst. Pros. Atty., for appellee (state).
Before KING, C. J., and MURPHY, SHEA, ALCORN and COMLEY, JJ.
After a trial to the court in the Circuit Court for the sixth circuit at New Haven, the defendants were found guilty as accessories to certain violations of General Statutes § 53-32, which appears with the statute on accessories in the footnote. 1 The principal offenders were not prosecuted. The convictions of the accessories were sustained by the Appellate Division of the Circuit Court, which, at the same time, certified that there were substantial questions of law which should be reviewed by this court. These questions, together with others certified by us, are now before us on this appeal.
There is no significant dispute about the facts. In November, 1961, The Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut occupied offices at 79 Trumbull Street in New Haven. For ten days during that month the league operated a planned parenthood center in the same building. The defendant Estelle T. Griswold is the salaried executive director of the league and served as acting director of the center. The other defendant, C. Lee Buxton, a physician, who has specialized in the fields of gynecology and obstetrics, was the medical director of the center. The purpose of the center was to provide information, instruction and medical advice to married persons concerning various means of preventing conception. In addition, patients were furnished with various contraceptive devices, drugs or materials. A fee, measured by ability to pay, was collected from the patient. At the trial, three married women from New Haven testified that they had visited the center, had received advice, instruction and certain contraceptive devices and materials from either or both of the defendants and had used these devices and materials in subsequent marital relations with their husbands. Upon these facts, there is no doubt that, within the meaning of § 54-196 of the General Statutes, the defendants did aid, abet and counsel married women in the commission of an offense under § 53-32.
Section 53-32, enacted in 1879 (Public Acts 1879, c. 78), has been under attack in this court on four different occasions in the past twenty-four years. State v. Nelson, 126 Conn. 412, 11 A.2d 856; Tileston v. Ullman, 129 Conn. 84, 26 A.2d 582; Buxton v. Ullman, 147 Conn. 48, 156 A.2d 508; Trubek v. Ullman, 147 Conn. 633, 165 A.2d 158. An examination of these cases discloses that every attack now made on the statute, standing by itself or when considered in combination with § 54-196, has been made and rejected in one or more of these cases, the last two having been decided within the past five years. The defendants virtually concede this fact in the closing paragraph of their brief where they urge this court 'to consider whether or not in the light of the facts of this case, the current developments in medical, social and religious thought in this area, and the present conditions of American and Connecticut life, modification of the prior opinions of this Court might not 'serve justice better." A-427 Rec. & Briefs 616. In rejecting this claim, we adhere to the principle...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Griswold v. State of Connecticut
...Fourteenth Amendment. The Appellate Division of the Circuit Court affirmed. The Supreme Court of Errors affirmed that judgment. 151 Conn. 544, 200 A.2d 479. We noted probable jurisdiction. 379 U.S. 926, 85 S.Ct. 328, 13 L.Ed.2d We think that appellants have standing to raise the constitutio......
-
State v. Griswold
...by its judgment dated June 7, 1965, 381 U.S. 1678, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 14 L.Ed.2d 510 reversed the judgment of this court dated April 28, 1964, 151 Conn. 544, 200 A.2d 479, and having issued its mandate dated July 2, 1965, ordering the judgment of the Supreme Court of Errors to be reversed with ......
-
THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF CHICKEN STEALING: SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND THE PATH TO POLYGAMY.
...Court, but that's their business." Id. (67) Compare Griswold, 381 U.S. at 480 with Poe, 367 U.S. at 500. (68) See Connecticut v. Griswold, 200 A.2d 479, 545 & n.1 (Conn. 1964) ("Any person who uses any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception shall ......
-
2005 Connecticut Appellate Review
...court held the judiciary had no jurisdiction over the Board's refusal to hold a commutation hearing, and in In re Application for Writ 12 151 Conn. 544, 200 A.2d 479 (1964), rev'd, 381 U.S. 479 (1965). The Connecticut Supreme Court had held, based on a long line of precedents, that the legi......
-
The Right Decision for the Wrong Reason: the Supreme Court Correctly Invalidates the Texas Homosexual Sodomy Statute, but Rather Than Finding an Equal Protection Violation in Lawrence v. Texas, the Court Incorrectly and Unnecessarily Overrules
...Griswold, 200 A.2d 479, 479 (Conn. 1964), rev'd, 381 U.S. 479 (1965). The principal offenders in the case were not prosecuted. Griswold, 200 A.2d at 479. SeeCONN. GEN. STAT. § 53-32 (1958) (Repealed 1969). Section 53-32 read: Any person who uses any drug, medicinal or instrument for the pur......
-
The Right Decision for the Wrong Reason: the Supreme Court Correctly Invalidates the Texas Homosexual Sodomy Statute, but Rather Than Finding an Equal Protection Violation in Lawrence v. Texas, the Court Incorrectly and Unnecessarily Overrules
...Griswold, 200 A.2d 479, 479 (Conn. 1964), rev'd, 381 U.S. 479 (1965). The principal offenders in the case were not prosecuted. Griswold, 200 A.2d at 479. SeeCONN. GEN. STAT. § 53-32 (1958) (Repealed 1969). Section 53-32 read: Any person who uses any drug, medicinal or instrument for the pur......