State v. Klein

• Decision Date: 10 November 1920
• Citation: 112 A. 524,95 Conn. 451
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. KLEIN et al.

112 A. 524

95 Conn. 451

STATE v. KLEIN et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

November 10, 1920

Fred Klein and others were convicted of an offense, appealed from the judgment and from denial of their motion for new trial and move that the Supreme Court of Errors direct the superior court to certify all the evidence in the cause, make it a part of the record, and print it at the expense of the State. Motion denied.

The following is a copy of defendants' motion:

The defendants, Fred Klein, William L. Bessler, and Michael J McDonnell, in the above-entitled cause, respectfully represent that they have appealed from the judgment of the superior court in and for Hartford county to the Supreme Court of Errors for the revision of errors which they and each of them claim to have occurred in the trial thereof and from the denial of their motion for a new trial, on the ground that the verdict was against the evidence, which was made by them on April 5, 1919; that they are entirely without funds to meet the necessary expense therein; that they filed a motion in the superior court for Hartford county on April 19, 1919, that all the evidence in said cause be made a part of the record and printed at the expense of the state; that said motion was denied on April 28, 1919. Warner, Judge.

Wherefore your petitioners respectfully ask the Supreme Court of Errors that an order be entered, directing the superior court in and for the county of Hartford to certify to the Supreme Court of Errors all the evidence in said cause and make it a part of the record at the expense of the state.

Edward J. Myers, of Hartford, for the motion.

Newell Jennings, Asst. State's Atty., of Bristol, opposed.

PER CURIAM.

The accused have appealed from the judgment of the superior court and from the denial of their motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was against the evidence.

They move that this court direct the superior court to certify all the evidence in said cause and make it a part of the record and print the same at the expense of the state, upon the ground that they are entirely without funds to meet the necessary expenses.

Section 5840, General Statutes, provides that upon the denial of a motion for a new trial for verdict against the evidence the party making such motion may take his appeal and thereupon the trial court shall certify to this court all the evidence in said cause and make it a part of the record. This requires the presentation by the appellant to the trial court in all cases of all of the evidence desired to be certified at his expense and the procuring from it of such certification and the making of it a part of the record.

The statute further provides:

" The provisions of section 5831, as to the expense of printing evidence, *** shall apply to appeals taken under the provisions of this section."

Section 5831, relating to the procedure upon motions to correct the finding, provides that-

" The expense of printing any evidence so made part of the record shall be paid by the party taking the exceptions *** at the actual expense thereof, not to...