State v. Keating
| Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
| Writing for the Court | Before KING, C. J., MURPHY and ALCORN, JJ., and HOUSE and BOGDANSKI; HOUSE |
| Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. John KEATING. STATE of Connecticut v. Vincent JOSEPH. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
| Decision Date | 05 May 1964 |
Page 724
v.
John KEATING.
STATE of Connecticut
v.
Vincent JOSEPH.
[151 Conn. 593]
Page 725
Joseph F. Skelley, Jr., Sp. Public Defender, for appellant (defendant Keating).Donald J. Cantor, Bridgeport, with whom, on the brief, were Richard S. Levin and Jacob A. Saxe, Hartford, for appellant (defendant Joseph).
George D. Stoughton, Asst. State's Atty., with whom, on the brief, was John D. LaBelle, State's Atty., for appellee (state).
Page 726
Before [151 Conn. 592] KING, C. J., MURPHY and ALCORN, JJ., and HOUSE and BOGDANSKI, Acting Justices.
[151 Conn. 593] HOUSE, Acting Justice.
John Keating and Vincent Joseph, the appellants in these two cases, were tried with Armand Lupo, Roland Arvisais, and Augustine Prete by a jury on a short-form information, [151 Conn. 594] authorized by Practice Book, 1963, § 493, charging that they and others conspired to obtain money by false pretenses. The offense was not otherwise specified except that each of them 'did combine, confederate and agree with one another, and with others to said [the State's] Attorney unknown, to obtain money by false pretenses, in violation of Section 53-360 of the General Statutes, Revision of 1958; and in pursuance of said conspiracy one or more of said conspirators did do certain acts in furtherance of said combination, confederation and agreement, all in violation of Section 54-197 of the General Statutes, Revision of 1958.' George Kania, another alleged conspirator, pleaded guilty and testified for the state. The jury returned a verdict of guilty as to each of the appellants and Lupo and Arvisais but not guilty as to Prete. Motions to set aside the verdict filed by each of the appellants were denied by the court, and they have appealed. Each has assigned as error the court's denial of his motion to set aside the verdict on the ground that it was fatally inconsistent as a matter of law. The common assignment of error presents the same question and will be first examined before consideration of Joseph's additional assignment of error as to rulings on evidence.
In is the claim of the appellants that the alleged conspiracy involved an agreement between all the accused conspirators whereby a milk truck driven by Prete would collide with an automobile in which the others were riding, whereupon fraudulent claims of injuries would be presented to collect insurance. It is the contention of the appellants that in such a conspiracy a verdict of guilty in the case of the appellants and not guilty in the case of Prete is fatally inconsistent as a matter of law.
[151 Conn. 595] This court can decide the merits of an appeal only on the record as it is presented. Cohn v. Mt. Zion Baptist Church, 130 Conn. 362, 366, 34 A.2d 129. Upon the common assignment of error claimed, the sole question presented is whether the verdict as rendered is inconsistent as a matter of law. That assignment advanced no claim that the verdict was not supported by the evidence, as was claimed in Smith v. Housing Authority, 144 Conn. 13, 14, 127 A.2d 45, but nevertheless...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Arroyo, No. 18031.
...of the evidence on count twelve, "[t]here was no basis for the court to disturb the verdict on that count." Id. In State v. Keating, 151 Conn. 592, 593-94, 200 A.2d 724 (1964), cert. denied sub nom. Joseph v. Connecticut, 379 U.S. 963, 85 S.Ct. 654, 13 L.Ed.2d 557 (1965), the two appealing ......
-
State v. Anderson, AC 35432
...178 Conn. 704, 705, 425 A.2d 108 (1979) (conviction of sale of narcotics, acquittal of possession of narcotics); State v. Keating, 151 Conn. 592, 593-94, 200 A.2d 724 (1964) (after two defendants were convicted of conspiracy and one was acquitted, appealing defendants claimed that their con......
-
State v. Anderson, No. 35432.
...178 Conn. 704, 705, 425 A.2d 108 (1979) (conviction of sale of narcotics, acquittal of possession of narcotics); State v. Keating, 151 Conn. 592, 593–94, 200 A.2d 724 (1964) (after two defendants were convicted of conspiracy and one was acquitted, appealing defendants claimed that their con......
-
State v. Villafane
...involving relevancy and remoteness and as to the scope of cross-examination to show contradictory statements.' State v. Keating, 151 Conn. 592, 597, 200 A.2d 724, 727, cert. denied sub nom. Joseph v. Connecticut,379 U.S. 963, 85 S.Ct. 654, 13 L.Ed.2d 557; see Covino v. Pfeffer, 160 Conn. 21......
-
State v. Arroyo, No. 18031.
...of the evidence on count twelve, "[t]here was no basis for the court to disturb the verdict on that count." Id. In State v. Keating, 151 Conn. 592, 593-94, 200 A.2d 724 (1964), cert. denied sub nom. Joseph v. Connecticut, 379 U.S. 963, 85 S.Ct. 654, 13 L.Ed.2d 557 (1965), the two appealing ......
-
State v. Anderson, AC 35432
...178 Conn. 704, 705, 425 A.2d 108 (1979) (conviction of sale of narcotics, acquittal of possession of narcotics); State v. Keating, 151 Conn. 592, 593-94, 200 A.2d 724 (1964) (after two defendants were convicted of conspiracy and one was acquitted, appealing defendants claimed that their con......
-
State v. Anderson, No. 35432.
...178 Conn. 704, 705, 425 A.2d 108 (1979) (conviction of sale of narcotics, acquittal of possession of narcotics); State v. Keating, 151 Conn. 592, 593–94, 200 A.2d 724 (1964) (after two defendants were convicted of conspiracy and one was acquitted, appealing defendants claimed that their con......
-
State v. Villafane
...involving relevancy and remoteness and as to the scope of cross-examination to show contradictory statements.' State v. Keating, 151 Conn. 592, 597, 200 A.2d 724, 727, cert. denied sub nom. Joseph v. Connecticut,379 U.S. 963, 85 S.Ct. 654, 13 L.Ed.2d 557; see Covino v. Pfeffer, 160 Conn. 21......