State v. Heinz
Citation | 480 A.2d 452,193 Conn. 612 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Decision Date | 10 July 1984 |
Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Curtiss HEINZ. |
Carl Schuman, Asst. State's Atty., with whom, on the brief, were Rosita Creamer, Asst. State's Atty., and Maureen Platt, Deputy Asst. State's Atty., for the appellant-appellee (State).
Vincent J. Trantolo, Hartford, for appellee-appellant (defendant).
Before SPEZIALE, C.J., and PETERS, PARSKEY, SHEA and GRILLO, JJ.
The principal issue in this case is whether affidavits accompanying an application for a warrant for arrest established probable cause to arrest the defendant on a charge of promoting an obscene performance.
The defendant, Curtiss Heinz, was charged with four counts of promoting an obsceneperformance in violation of General Statutes § 53a-194, the first two counts relating to events that occurred on December 19, 1979, and the latter two counts relating to events that occurred on January 9, 1980. After a trial to a jury, the defendant was convicted on all four counts. The Appellate Session of the Superior Court determined that counts two, three and four should be dismissed. Prosecution under count two was held barred, on double jeopardy grounds, because of the close factual nexus between that count and the first count. Prosecution under counts three and four was held barred because of the legal insufficiency of the warrant with respect to those counts. With respect to the remaining count, count one, the Appellate Session found that an evidentiary error on the part of the trial court required a new trial. We granted petitions for certification from both the defendant and the state and consequently have two appeals before us. We find no error on the defendant's appeal, but error on the state's appeal
The facts of this case are set forth in the opinion of the Appellate Session. "In December, 1979, and January, 1980, the defendant was the liquor permittee of a cafe in East Hartford known as the Venus Lounge. The cafe consisted of a large room with a long bar opposite a small square stage which was raised approximately three feet above the floor. The stage was surrounded on three sides by tables and chairs. The fourth side abutted a wall which was covered by a large mirror. As an attraction the business featured several female 'exotic' dancers who would each perform a solo dance routine on the stage to the music of a jukebox.
State v. Heinz, 38 Conn.Sup. 570, 571-72, 455 A.2d 346 (1982).
The defendant's appeal questions the Appellate Session's order granting him a new trial on the first count of the information. He maintains that: (1) his motion to dismiss should have been granted because there was no probable cause for his arrest; (2) his motions for acquittal should have been granted because the state failed to establish the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt; and (3) disputed evidence about liquor control commission regulations should be entirely barred from his retrial. We find these claims of error unpersuasive.
The defendant argues that the application for the arrest warrant and the supporting affidavits of Officer Kenary failed to provide information sufficient to establish probable cause for his arrest for violation of General Statutes § 53a-194(a). In the absence of probable cause, under the holding of State v. Licari, 153 Conn. 127, 132-34, 214 A.2d 900 (1965), he was, he claims, entitled to dismissal of count one. Although the state, in order to test the continuing validity of State v. Licari, concedes that the arrest warrant failed to recite probable cause, that concession cannot compel this court to find error in the judgment to the contrary reached by both the trial court and the Appellate Session. We have decided to consider this issue on the merits.
The validity of an arrest warrant depends upon whether the application for the warrant and the accompanying affidavit establish probable cause to believe that: (1) a crime has been committed; and (2) the person to be arrested committed the crime. General Statutes § 54-2a(a)(1); 1 Practice Book § 593; State v. Daley, 189 Conn. 717, 720, 458 A.2d 1147 (1983); State v. DeChamplain, 179 Conn. 522, 529, 427 A.2d 1338 (1980); 1 LaFave, Search and Seizure (1978) § 3.7. The affidavit must recite sufficient facts so that the judicial officer who issues the warrant can, relying solely on the information thus brought to his or her attention, make an independent determination that probable cause exists as to each element of every crime charged. U.S. Const., amends. IV and XIV; Conn. Const., art. I § 7; Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 2332, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983); Whiteley v. Warden, 401 U.S. 560, 565 n. 8, 91 S.Ct. 1031, 1035 n. 8, 28 L.Ed.2d 306 (1971); State v. Bember, 183 Conn. 394, 409-10, 439 A.2d 387 (1981); State v. Jackson, 162 Conn. 440, 443, 294 A.2d 517, cert. denied, 409 U.S. 870, 93 S.Ct. 198, 34 L.Ed.2d 121 (1972).
In our review to determine the sufficiency of an affidavit to establish probable cause we operate under two constraints. One inheres in the standard of probable cause to arrest. That standard is less demanding than that which attends an inquiry into whether there has been a prima facie showing of criminal activity. See Practice Book § 815(5). Instead, all that is required is that the affidavit, read in a common-sense manner, give objective evidence of a fair probability that proscribed activity has occurred. Illinois v. Gates, supra, 2330, 2332; Torres v. Puerto Rico, 442 U.S. 465, 471, 99 S.Ct. 2425, 2429, 61 L.Ed.2d 1 (1979); Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 419, 89 S.Ct. 584, 590, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969); State v. Jackson, supra, 445, 294 A.2d 517. The other constraint inheres in the substantial deference to be accorded to the decision of the judicial authority that issued the warrant. That deference is mandated by our constitutions' strong preference that arrests, like searches, are normally to be conducted pursuant to a warrant. Massachusetts v. Upton, --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 2085, 80 L.Ed.2d 721 (1984); Illinois v. Gates, supra, 2331, United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 109, 85 S.Ct. 741, 746, 13 L.Ed.2d 684 (1965); State v. Bember, supra, 412-13, 439 A.2d 387. State v. DeChamplain, supra, 527, 533, 427 A.2d 1338; State v. Jackson, supra, 445, 294 A.2d 517.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sullivan v. Stein
...has occurred." State v. Barton, 219 Conn. 529, 548, 594 A.2d 917 (1991) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also State v. Heinz, 193 Conn. 612, 617, 480 A.2d 452 (1984) (defining probable cause as a standard "less demanding than that which attends an inquiry into whether there has been ......
-
State v. Orhan
..."There is no distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence [so] far as probative force is concerned.... State v. Heinz, 193 Conn. 612, 625, 480 A.2d 452 (1984). In fact, circumstantial evidence may be more certain, satisfying and persuasive than direct evidence.... State v. Scales,......
-
State v. Bagnaschi
..., 198 Conn. 255, 259, 502 A.2d 886, cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1143, 106 S.Ct. 1797, 90 L.Ed. 2d 342 (1986) ; see also State v. Heinz , 193 Conn. 612, 629, 480 A.2d 452 (1984) (under federal law, fact that person has been illegally arrested or detained does not void subsequent conviction); Stat......
-
Friend v. Commissioner of Correction
... ... petitioner’s right to effective assistance of counsel because ... trial counsel failed to adequately respond to the state’s ... improper closing arguments, and failed to adequately consult ... with, investigate, prepare, and present the testimony of a ... The common-law rule protects the defendant’s ... right to have a jury determine his guilt or innocence ... State v. Heinz, supra, 193 Conn. at 628, 480 A.2d ... 452 ... " ... ‘Testimony is objectionable if it embraces an opinion on the ... ...