State v. Hart
| Decision Date | 26 March 1963 |
| Docket Number | Nos. MV,s. MV |
| Citation | 2 Conn.Cir.Ct. 27,193 A.2d 903 |
| Court | Circuit Court of Connecticut. Connecticut Circuit Court, Appellate Division |
| Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Marvin S. HART. STATE of Connecticut v. Jerome H. LEVINSON. 13-2551, MV 13-2552. |
Charles B. Alaimo, Thompsonville, for the appellant (defendant hart).
Theodore A. Lubinsky, West Hartford, with whom, on the brief, was I. Albert Lehrer, West Hartford, for the appellant (defendant Levinson).
Joseph Asbell, Prosecuting Atty., for the appellee (state).
These two cases were tried together to the court and have been consolidated on appeal. From his conviction of the crime of racing in violation of § 14-224(b) of the General Statutes each defendant has appealed, assigning as error the court's conclusion that on all the evidence he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Under this general assignment we have examined the entire evidence.
Section 14-224(b) of the General Statutes provides as follows: 'No person shall operate a motor vehicle upon any public highway for a wager or for any race or for the purpose of making a speed record.' Neither the matter of a wager nor the matter of a speed record is involved in this case; the sole question is whether the defendants were operating their motor vehicles 'for any race.' A race is a contest of speed, a competitive trial of speed; it involves the idea of competitive locomotion; competition is an essential element. State v. Dionne, 24 Conn.Sup. 59, 62, 186 A.2d 561, and cases cited therein. 'Racing on the highway consists of something more than one man operating his automobile abreast of another automobile while both are proceeding in the same direction on a four-lane highway.' Commonwealth v. Leonard, 21 Beaver 110, 113 (Pa.).
Most of the facts are not in dispute and are as follows: On April 5, 1962, at about 6:30 p. m., the defendant Hart, driving a 1955 six-cylinder Ford with a single barrel carburetor, and the defendant Levinson, driving a 1959 Ford V-8, stopped on Austin Street in the town of Suffield directly in front of the house of Andrew McComb, one of the complaining witnesses, at the corner of Austin and South Streets. They were stopped side by side facing east for about ten minutes. Then they proceeded easterly down Austin Street side by side until they reached a bridge, too narrow for two cars to travel abreast, situated about half a mile away, at which point one car drew ahead and the other fell behind. After they passed over the bridge, they returned to their previous side-by-side positions. This procedure occurred three times and then they drove off. At no time during these three occurrences did one car pull ahead of the other except to pass over the bridge. Both defendants testified that they were not racing; that they were calibrating the tachometer on the car of the defendant Hart, his speedometer being broken, with the speedometer on the car of the defendant Levinson; that to do this they had to drive side by side...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Madison v. Geier
...However, two cars may proceed abreast at various speeds even exceeding the legal limit without racing. In State v. Hart (1963), 2 Conn.Cir. 27, 193 A.2d 903, such was the situation but it was held there was no race because the drivers were merely calibrating the tachometer on one car whose ......
-
State v. Volk
...cite and rely on the following cases from other jurisdictions: State v. Dionne, 24 Conn.Sup. 59, 186 A.2d 561 (1962); State v. Hart, 2 Conn.Cir. 27, 193 A.2d 903 (1963); State v. Hughes, 2 Conn.Cir. 75, 194 A.2d 722 (1963); City of Madison v. Geier, 27 Wis.2d 687, 135 N.W.2d 761 (1965); Peo......
-
People v. Stangeland
...support the jury's conclusion that the defendants were racing and attempting to prevent one from overtaking the other. State v. Hart, 2 Conn.Cir. 27, 193 A.2d 903 (1963) cited by defendants, is clearly distinguishable from the case at bar. In that case the defendant offered a plausible expl......
-
State v. Hughes
...of competitive locomotion--in which competition is an essential element. State v. Dionne, 24 Conn.Sup. 59, 186 A.2d 561; State v. Hart, 2 Conn.Cir. 27, 193 A.2d 903. Ordinarily, the mere traveling of two cars abreast of each other in the same direction in and of itself does not constitute r......