State v. Hines
| Decision Date | 12 July 1972 |
| Citation | 163 Conn. 617,316 A.2d 392 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Claude E. HINES. |
Ira B. Grudberg, New Haven, for appellant (defendant).
John F. Mulcahy, Jr., Asst. State's Atty. with whom were Jerrold H. Barnett, Asst. State's Atty., and, on the brief, Arnold Markle, State's Atty., for appellee (state).
Before HOUSE, C.J., and COTTER, RYAN, SHAPIRO and LOISELLE, JJ.
The defendant, on a jury trial, was found guilty on five counts of policy playing in violation of § 53-298 of the General Statutes and, on a second part of the information, of being a second offender with a prior conviction on the same charge. The decisive issue on his appeal to this court is whether the trial court erred in admitting during the trial on the first part of the information evidence of the defendant's prior conviction for policy playing.
During the cross-examination of the defendant, he testified that he knew that he had never taken a bet from the state's witness who had testified to placing a bet with him. Then ensued the following questions and answers:
Thereafter, over objection, the state was permitted for purposes of contradicting the testimony of the defendant to inquire of him if he was the Claude E. Hines who, on March 14, 1967, was found guilty in the Circuit Court of the crime of policy playing, to which inquiry the defendant answered 'yes.'
Since the prior conviction was for an offense which was punishable by confinement for a maximum of less than one year, the evidence of the conviction was not admissible under the provisions of § 52-145 of the General Statutes to attack the defendant's credibility on the ground of a prior conviction. Heating Acceptance Corporation v. Patterson, 152 Conn. 467, 472, 208 A.2d 341. Recognizing this, the evidence was not offered by the state to impeach his credibility on the ground of that conviction but was offered directly to contradict his testimony that he had never taken a bet.
It is unnecessary to discuss whether such evidence should have been admitted under any circumstances in view of the witness' correction of his statement from 'I never taken a bet' to 'I never taken no bet from him.' It is clear that evidence of a prior conviction for the general crime of 'policy playing' without specification of the particular criminal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. L'Heureux
...to impeach his credibility on the ground of that conviction but was offered directly to contradict his testimony.' State v. Hines, 163 Conn. 617, 618-619, 316 A.2d 392, 393. It is unnecessary to discuss whether such evidence could have been admitted for the purpose of directly contradicting......
-
State Of Conn. v. Davis., No. 18537.
...we conclude that the trial court properly characterized it as irrelevant and precluded it on that basis. See State v. Hines, 163 Conn. 617, 619, 316 A.2d 392 (1972) (because crime of policy playing under General Statutes [Cum. Sup.1965] § 53-298 was broadly defined, “evidence of conviction ......
-
Cunningham v. PLANNING AND ZONING COM'N, 25739.
... ... before the trial court when it rendered its judgment dismissing the appeal, and we do not take new evidence at this level of appeal; see State v. Dillard, 66 Conn.App. 238, 248 n. 11, 784 A.2d 387, cert. denied, 258 Conn. 943, 786 A.2d 431 (2001); we grant the defendants' motion to strike ... ...
-
State v. Artieri
...evidence has been admitted ostensibly for that purpose. State v. L'Heureux, 166 Conn. 312, 323, 348 A.2d 578 (1974); State v. Hines, 163 Conn. 617, 619, 316 A.2d 392 (1972). In this case, neither the heroin convictions nor the facts underlying them contradicted any of the defendant's testim......