State v. Guilfoyle

• Citation: 109 Conn. 124,145 A. 761
• Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut
• Decision Date: 17 April 1929
• Parties: STATE v. GUILFOYLE.

145 A. 761

109 Conn. 124

STATE v. GUILFOYLE.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

April 17, 1929

Appeal from Superior Court, Hartford County; L. P. Waldo Marvin Christopher L. Avery, and Allyn L. Brown, Judges.

Harold N. Guilfoyle was convicted of murder in the second degree and he appeals. No error.

Evidence held sufficient to sustain conclusion that defendant shot deceased.

John T Robinson and Samuel Rosenthal, both of Hartford, for appellant.

Hugh M. Alcorn, State's Atty., and Harold E. Mitchell, both of Hartford, and Donald Gaffney, of New Britain, for the State.

Argued before WHEELER, C.J., and MALTBIE, HAINES, HINMAN, and BANKS, JJ.

HINMAN, J.

The indictment charged the accused with murder in the first degree in having shot to death one Claire K. Gaudet, at Hartford, on the evening of January 18, 1928. Having pleaded not guilty, and so elected, he was tried by the court, composed of three judges as provided by Chapter 107 of the Public Acts of 1927, and was adjudged guilty of murder in the second degree. Thereupon he filed a motion to set aside the verdict or judgment, which was denied. The appeal is in substantial accordance with the procedure for appeals in criminal cases tried to the court as outlined in State v. Frost, 105 Conn. 326, 135 A. 446, and assumes the twofold aspect there indicated as open to the appellant in a criminal case so tried. It raises the general question whether, upon the evidence, the defendant could be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, in like manner as, in a trial to a jury, that question would be presented by appeal from denial of a motion to set aside the verdict as against the evidence. We stated in State v. Frost, pages 331, 332 (135 A. 446), that, in criminal cases tried to the court, this motion should be dispensed with and the same purpose attained by a simple assignment of error when the appeal is taken. The appellant has pursued both methods.

In the second aspect, by analogy to the procedure on appeal from the judgment of a court in a civil case, a finding of the facts and the conclusions reached by the court therefrom has been obtained, various corrections of this finding are sought in the regular way, and assignments of error are predicated upon failure to correct this finding, an interlocutory ruling, and the conclusions arrived at from the subordinate facts. Preliminary to a consideration of the numerous assignments of error, a statement, as condensed as possible, of some of the facts found by the trial court, appears to be desirable.

The defendant Guilfoyle was a veterinary employed by the United States government as an inspector engaged in eradication of bovine tuberculosis in Connecticut, and with his wife, occupied an apartment on the second floor of a house at 691 Maple Avenue, in Hartford. The apartment consisted of four rooms--kitchen, living room, bathroom, and bedroom. The kitchen is located in about the center of the apartment, and is entered from a hall doorway; the living room is located to the east and the bedroom to the west of the kitchen; the bathroom is between the kitchen and the bedroom. Directly across the hall from the door leading to the Guilfoyle apartment is an apartment occupied by one Johnston, the door leading to it being at the head of the stairs. The outside front doors of the house on the first floor open into a vestibule, and a door opens inwardly from the vestibule to the hallway, from which front and rear stairways lead to the second and third floors.

Claire K. Gaudet was the wife of Maximin J. Gaudet, to whom she was married December 27, 1921. At the time of her death she was 34 years old. After their marriage, they lived in New Haven, and a daughter was born to them in November, 1922. In 1925 they moved to Hartford, where they lived until they returned to New Haven May 1, 1927. In 1919 Mrs. Gaudet met Mrs. Way, who at that time was also unmarried, but in 1923 married Algernon S. Way. In July or August, 1926, the Ways were introduced to the Guilfoyles by a mutual friend, and a frequent interchange of visits followed. In September, 1926, the Ways introduced the Gaudets to the Guilfoyles. From the date of this introduction, the three families were very friendly, frequently exchanging visits with each other, having parties together, and going on trips together. These intimate relations continued up to New Year's, 1927, when, while they were all at a party at the Ways' home, Mr. Way struck Mrs. Way in the face. This was resented by Dr. Guilfoyle and Mr. Gaudet, and from that time on the Gaudets and the Guilfoyles saw very little of the Ways, but sought to drop them and avoid them socially. The intimacies of the Gaudets and the Guilfoyles continued until January, 1928, and visits were frequently exchanged.

On Sunday, January 15, 1928, the accused and his wife drove to New Haven, went to the apartment of Mr. and Mrs. Gaudet, stayed to dinner and through the evening until about 11 p. m., and, in accordance with a previous arrangement, brought Mrs. Gaudet and her small daughter back to Hartford. One purpose of Mrs. Gaudet's trip to Hartford was to testify in a lawsuit pending in the superior court and assigned for trial Tuesday, January 17th. On the following Wednesday morning, Mr. Gaudet telephoned his wife and asked her to come home, and she promised that she would do so the following morning. On Wednesday morning, the day of the homicide, the accused went to Bridgeport and spent the day there inspecting cattle. He wore a brown overcoat. Upon his return to Hartford, he parked his automobile in front of the apartment house, and it remained there until after the homicide. During the day he appeared to be cheerful and normal, and free from nervousness or depression.

Mrs. Gaudet and her little daughter had supper that evening with the accused and his wife in the Guilfoyle apartment. At about 7:25 o'clock, as Mr. and Mrs. Way were passing the apartment house, they saw Dr. Guilfoyle's car parked in the street, also observed a light in the accused's rooms, and then decided to stop in to say " hello." This was the first occasion on which the Ways, the Guilfoyles, and Mrs. Gaudet had been together since New Year's, 1927. After a general conversation, Mr. Way went into the living room with the Gaudet child, and Mrs. Gaudet, Mrs. Way, and Mrs. Guilfoyle washed the supper dishes. The accused served beer to every one present except the little girl, and, in addition, gave Mr. Way a glass of whisky. The only people in the Guilfoyle apartment that evening prior to the homicide were Mr. and Mrs. Guilfoyle, Mrs. Gaudet and her daughter, and Mr. and Mrs. Way.

Shortly after 8 o'clock, the little girl complaining of being tired, Mrs. Gaudet put a coat on her and prepared to leave. The accused thereupon went to the clothes closet in the bedroom where the brown overcoat then was and shortly afterward came out again wearing a gray overcoat which had been hanging in the same closet, and stood in the entryway between the bedroom and the kitchen with both hands in his overcoat pockets. After the little girl was made ready, Mrs. Way assisted both Mrs. Gaudet and Mrs. Guilfoyle in putting on their outer wraps. Meanwhile Mrs. Gaudet's daughter started out of the door and down the stairs, and Mr. Way followed her down and out onto the sidewalk to protect her from the dangers of the street. For many years Way's left leg had been stiff and lame, and his right arm was amputated near the shoulder when he was a small boy.

After the Gaudet child and Way had gone down the stairs, the accused stepped out into the hall and waited for Mrs. Gaudet, and together they went down the stairs, Mrs. Gaudet in the lead and the accused following. As Mrs. Gaudet stepped from the lower step to the hallway, she was shot in the back with a .25 caliber automatic Colt pistol purchased by the accused in Philadelphia in 1924. The bullet entered a little below the right shoulder blade, and pursued a downward and forward course, bearing slightly to the left. The course of the bullet showed that the fatal shot was fired from a pistol held in the right hand and from behind and above. Mrs. Gaudet screamed and made her way to the vestibule door, and later slumped down upon the floor of the vestibule. The accused continued across the hall to the south wall near the vestibule door, and, when first seen after the shooting, was standing there, about three feet from Mrs. Gaudet. After the shooting of Mrs. Gaudet, the accused turned the weapon upon himself and fired two shots. One shot took effect in the right side of his head, passed through the muscular part of the head, cutting the optic nerve and emerged at the bridge of the nose. The bullet pursued practically a horizontal course from the point of entrance to the point of exit. The other bullet embedded itself in the north wall about six feet one inch above the floor and about four feet easterly from the bottom of the front stairs.

After the accused and Mrs. Gaudet had left the apartment, Mrs. Way and Mrs. Guilfoyle started to turn out the lights in the kitchen and bedroom. Mrs. Way went to the bedroom to turn the switch which operated the light in that room, and Mrs Guilfoyle went to the kitchen light which operated from an overhead string pull. As Mrs. Way was about to place her hand upon the switch in the bedroom she heard the first shot, and turned and followed Mrs. Guilfoyle into the hall and down the stairs. Mrs. Guilfoyle was the first person to reach the accused after the shooting. When Mrs. Way arrived, he was close to the south wall near the vestibule with his right hand over his right eye. On the floor at his feet was his pistol. Mrs. Guilfoyle at once assisted the accused upstairs and into the bathroom of his...