State v. Judkins

Citation6 Conn.Cir.Ct. 649,296 A.2d 4
Decision Date14 April 1972
Docket NumberNo. CR,CR
PartiesSTATE of Connecticut v. Ralph JUDKINS. 14-125371.
CourtCircuit Court of Connecticut. Connecticut Circuit Court, Appellate Division

Rodney R. Jones, West Hartford, for appellant (defendant).

Allen W. Smith, Asst. Pros. Atty., for appellee (state).

DEARINGTON, Judge.

The defendant was charged in three counts with the crimes of interfering with a police officer, assault on a police officer, and resisting a police officer, in violation of § 53-165 of the General Statutes. On a trial to the jury, the defendant was found not guilty on the first and second counts and guilty of resisting a police officer as charged in the third count. He has appealed from the judgment rendered on the guilty verdict. Three assignments of error have been pursued on the appeal: (1) denial of the defendant's motion for a directed verdict; (2) instructions to the jury on the weighing of the credibility of the defendant; and (3) instructions to the jury on the defendant's constructive knowledge that police officers were present. Other assignments of error, not pursued in the brief, are treated as having been abandoned. French v. Oberreuter, 157 Conn. 181, 184, 251 A.2d 67; Maltbie, Conn.App.Proc. § 167.

After the state and the defense rested, the defendant moved for a directed verdict on the ground that the facts presented were insufficient as a matter of law to convict and that the conviction went against the weight of the evidence. The court denied the motion. '(T)he court may direct a verdict of not guilty in a criminal case when the reasoning mind could not reasonably reach a conclusion other than that the evidence, under the law, is not sufficient to justify a finding of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial court should not direct a verdict of not guilty unless the judge is clearly of the opinion, upon the best consideration and judgment he can give the matter, that under the law the evidence compels such a direction.' State v. Torello, 100 Conn. 637, 643, 124 A. 375, 377; see General Statutes § 54-89. 'This power should, however, be carefully used.' Maltbie, op. cit. § 203, p. 252. The correctness of the court's ruling on the motion must be tested by the evidence set forth in the certified transcript. Practice Book § 960.

From the evidence before them, the jury could reasonably have found the following facts beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant, accompanied by his wife, was attending a rock and roll concert at the Loft a music coffeehouse located at 419 Farmington Avenue in the city of Hartford, on the evening of February 7, 1971. The Loft is located on the second floor and is reached by a staircase ascending from the ground floor. At around 11 p.m., three members of the Hartford police, Detective Edward Cody, Officer Martin Haley and Officer Little, arrived in civilian clothes and informed the owner, Michael Sussman, that the Loft was overcrowded and thereupon arrested him for violating a city ordinance. The ordinance permitted an attendance in the Loft of 72 people, and it was claimed that over 150 were in attendance. The owner was instructed to go into the hall where a band was playing, stop the music, and advise the people that the hall was closed and that they must leave. Sussman complied by going to the bandstand, stopping the music, and announcing over the loudspeaker system that the police were there, the place must be closed because of regulations, and the people must leave. The defendant approached Cody and inquired why the place was being closed, and Cody replied that it was because a city ordinance on overcrowding was being violated. The defendant left and entered another room. In the meantime people were leaving through each of two doors leading out of the two rooms occupied by the Loft. The defendant returned to Cody and said, 'You lousy cops, you're always spoiling people's good times. You're using the law to oppress people.' Cody replied, 'Go ahead, just leave, you're blocking the door.' The defendant replied, 'I don't have to leave if I don't want to.' The officer thereupon arrested the defendant, who said 'You can't arrest me,' and grabbed Cody with both hands, pulling him in such a way as to move both of them toward the stairway. Officer Haley was at the top of the stairway and grabbed Cody to prevent him from tumbling down the stairs. Cody, Haley and the defendant then proceeded down the stairs, with the defendant struggling, until they reached the ground floor, where handcuffs were placed on the defendant. During the struggle on the stairs Cody received lacerations on his right arm and injuries to the muscle tendons near the elbow. He was treated at the Hartford Hospital and the Hartford Health Clinic and remained away from work for two and one-half weeks.

The defendant claims that there was an insufficiency of evidence to convict him and that the court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict. He argues that there was no evidence of resistance, without which there could be no conviction. Section 53-165 provides: 'Any person who obstructs, resists, hinders, endangers or interferes with any police officer .. . in the performance of his duties shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 53-16.' The defendant cites State v. Neubauer, 2 Conn.Cir. 169, 197 A.2d 93, State v. Harris, 4 Conn.Cir. 534, 236 A.2d 479, and State v. Seiden, 6 Conn.Cir. 42, 263 A.2d 277, to the effect that there must be a showing of hindrance or interference with an officer while he is engaged in the performance of his duties. The defendant contends that his actions could only be construed as an attempt to maintain his balance. The evidence indicated that Cody was trying to clear the hall and that the defendant was blocking the door. Not only was the defendant blocking the door but his remarks to the officer tended to show his bellicose attitude. There was evidence that he physically grabbed the officer with each hand and pulled him in the direction of the stairs, causing each to stumble. The violence of the struggle is indicated by the injuries Cody received as they went down the stairs. No issue is raised that the room was overcrowded and a city ordinance was being violated. The officers were in the process of enforcing the ordinance, and the evidence indicates that the defendant forcibly resisted their efforts. "(T)o resist' an officer is to oppose him by direct, active, and more or less forcible means . . ..' 58 Am.Jur.2d 871, Obstructing Justice, § 24. Ballentine, Law Dictionary (2d Ed.), defines resisting an officer as '(t)he active and direct use of force in...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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