State v. Jones

Citation2 Conn.Cir.Ct. 698,205 A.2d 507
Decision Date13 August 1964
Docket NumberNo. CR,CR
CourtCircuit Court of Connecticut. Connecticut Circuit Court, Appellate Division
PartiesSTATE of Connecticut v. Robert JONES. 15-5295.

William F. Mangan, Jr., New Britain, for appellant (defendant).

Stanley J. Traceski, Jr., Asst. Pros. Atty., for appellee (state).

LEVINE, Judge.

The defendant was convicted in a trial to the court of the crime of lascivious carriage in violation of § 53-219 of the General Statutes and has appealed on the ground that on all the evidence he should not have been found guilty of the charge. He has also assigned error in the conclusions stated in the court's finding. However, since his rights will be completely protected by the comprehensive inquiry required by the general assignment of error in the conclusion of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, it will not be necessary to consider the error addressed to the finding. State v. Pundy, 147 Conn. 7, 8, 156 A.2d 193.

The court could reasonably have found the following facts: 'On September 21, 1963, the defendant, at 11:30 p. m., requested a key from the landlord to the apartment of a certain woman, representing that he was her brother. The landlord and the defendant assisted the intoxicated woman into her apartment, which consisted of a combination bedroom and living room, nine feet by twelve feet. Shortly thereafter, the landlord heard shouting and screaming coming from that apartment and knocked on the door. When there was no response, he called the police and by means of a passkey opened the door and entered the apartment. The lights were on and the woman and the defendant were both in bed, completely nude, lying side by side, covered by a sheet. The woman appeared to be unconscious and was given a drink of water to revive her. Her face was bruised and her eye blackened. The defendant did not testify.

The defendant claims that the state failed to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt since, in his own words, 'sexual activity or nudity conducted privately behind locked doors between a willing male and willing female do not constitute lascivious carriage.' The predecessor statute of § 53-219 was enacted in 1642 by the General Court, the legislative body of that era. See 1 Col.Rec. 78. The leading judicial decision in Connecticut is Fowler v. State, 5 Day 81, 84, which in part states as follows: 'Although, from the indelicacy of the subject, and the different shades of criminality attending the offense, the legislature have avoided a definition of lascivious carriage and behavior; yet it is evident from the preamble to the act, and the plain import of the expressions, that they meant to include and suppress all those wanton acts, between persons of different sexes, flowing from the exercise of lustful passions, which are grossly indecent and unchaste; and which are not otherwise punished as crimes against chastity and public decency.' 'The word 'lascivious,' as employed in the statute, * * * signifies conduct which is wanton, lewd, and lustful, and tending to produce voluptuous or lewd emotions.' Zeiner v. Zeiner, 120 Conn. 161, 166, 179 A. 644, 646. 'The word 'lascivious' includes wanton acts between persons of different sexes flowing from lustful passion, which are grossly indecent and unchaste, which are lewd and lustful, and which tend to produce lustful emotions and desires.' State v. Dallaire, 23 Conn.Sup. 299, 301, 182 A.2d 341, 342. 'Lustful' is defined as gross immorality, 'lewd' is defined as given to unlawful indulgence of lust, eager for sexual indulgence, and unchaste is defined as...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • City of Seattle v. Buchanan
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • September 28, 1978
    ...being that the term "lewd" means " 'given to unlawful indulgence of lust, eager for sexual indulgence, . . .' " State v. Jones, 2 Conn.Cir. 698, 700, 205 A.2d 507, 509 (1964); Martin v. State, 534 P.2d 685 (Okl.1975); Chesebrough v. State, 255 So.2d 675 (Fla.1971). See generally 25 Words an......
  • State v. Meyer
    • United States
    • Oregon Court of Appeals
    • May 19, 1993
    ...103 Cal.App.2d 326, 330, 229 P.2d 843, 846 (1951); State v. Trombley, 3 Conn.Cir. 28, 206 A.2d 482, 484 (1964); State v. Jones, 2 Conn.Cir. 698, 205 A.2d 507, 509 (1964); Chesebrough v. State, 255 So.2d 675, 677-78 (Fla.1971); Buchanan v. State, 111 So.2d 51, 57 (Fla.1959); State v. Brenner......
  • State in Interest of L. G. W., 17417
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • January 22, 1982
    ...district and Supreme courts have a comparable power by statute in criminal cases. U.C.A., 1953, § 76-1-402(5).3 E.g., State v. Jones, 2 Conn.Cir. 698, 205 A.2d 507 (1964); State v. Kocher, 112 Mont. 511, 119 P.2d 35 (1941).4 E.g., State v. Kueny, Iowa, 215 N.W.2d 215 (1974); District of Col......
  • State v. Malena
    • United States
    • Circuit Court of Connecticut. Connecticut Circuit Court, Appellate Division
    • September 8, 1967
    ...of a lustful, lecherous, lascivious, or libidinous nature. State v. Mitchell, 149 Iowa 362, 365, 128 N.W. 378; see State v. Jones, 2 Conn.Cir. 698, 700, 205 A.2d 507. See Words and Phrases for other judicial constructions and definitions of 'house of ill-fame' and 'lewdness.' Applying such ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT