State v. Lafferty
| Decision Date | 01 March 1983 |
| Citation | 456 A.2d 272,189 Conn. 360 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Alexander LAFFERTY. |
Carl Schuman, Asst. State's Atty., with whom were Herbert G. Appleton, Asst. State's Atty. and, on brief, John M. Bailey, State's Atty., for appellant (state).
Albert G. Murphy, Hartford, for appellee (defendant).
Before SPEZIALE, C.J., and PETERS, HEALEY, PARSKEY and GRILLO, JJ.
The defendant was charged by information with two counts of larceny in the first degree for allegedly embezzling approximately $309,000 from his employer. At trial, the defendant presented evidence that at the time of the commission of the crimes with which he was charged he was unable to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law as the result of a mental defect known as pathological or compulsive gambling. On the basis of the psychiatric testimony presented, the trial court found the defendant not guilty by reason of insanity pursuant to General Statutes § 53a-13. 1 Thereafter, the defendant was ordered committed to a state mental hospital under General Statutes § 53a-47(a)(1) 2 to determine whether "his release [from custody] would constitute a danger to himself or others." General Statutes § 53a-47(a)(3). At a subsequent hearing under § 53a-47(a)(4), the trial court heard the testimony of Dr. Hans Langhammer, a staff psychiatrist at Norwich State Hospital called by the state, and Dr. Marvin Steinberg, a psychologist called by the defendant. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court in an oral decision found that the defendant did not constitute a danger to himself or others, and it ordered his release.
The state, after obtaining the permission of the trial court pursuant to § 54-96 of the General Statutes, appealed to this court claiming that the trial court erred by interpreting the phrase "a danger to himself or others" in § 53a-47(a)(4) to mean only a physical danger, and not a danger to property. The state argues that the trial court found the defendant to be a danger to property and that such a danger is included within the meaning of "a danger to himself and others" in the statute. The defendant responds that the court found only that the defendant was "possibly" a danger to property, but that even if he were so, he was nonetheless properly released because the statute is limited to physical danger.
In its oral decision, the court stated: (Emphasis added.) It is unclear whether the trial court was merely recapitulating the psychiatrist's testimony or whether it was making a finding of fact. Also, the use of the word "possibly" regarding danger to property adds to the ambiguity of the court's oral decision. Whether the defendant was a danger to property is a question of fact which must be determined before we may properly review the claims made in this appeal. It is the function of the trial court, not this court, to find facts. It is therefore necessary for us to remand this case for a further articulation of the trial court's decision on whether the defendant was a danger to property. State v. Ostroski, 184 Conn. ---, ---, ---, 440 A.2d 166 (1981); Kaplan v. Kaplan, 185 Conn. ---, ---, ---, 440 A.2d 252 (1981).
The case is remanded to the trial court with direction to file a memorandum of decision articulating the basis upon which it found the defendant not to be a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Tate
...necessary determinations. In general, "[i]t is the function of the trial court, not this court, to find facts." State v. Lafferty, 189 Conn. 360, 363, 456 A.2d 272 (1983). Imposing a fact-finding function on this court, therefore, would be contrary to generally established law. Indeed, it w......
-
State v. Cobb, 14384
...expanded universe of cases. In general, "[i]t is the function of the trial court, not this court, to find facts." State v. Lafferty, 189 Conn. 360, 363, 456 A.2d 272 (1983); State v. Ostroski, 184 Conn. 455, 458, 440 A.2d 166 (1981); Gallo v. Gallo, 184 Conn. 36, 38, 440 A.2d 782 (1981). Im......
-
Simmons v. Simmons, 15658
...6 Conn.App. 595, 609, 507 A.2d 129 (1986). "It is the function of the trial court, not this court, to find facts." State v. Lafferty, 189 Conn. 360, 363, 456 A.2d 272 (1983). Since a contractual claim was not properly raised at trial, it is not reviewable by this court. "[T]o review [a] cla......
-
State v. Satchwell
...State v. Cobb, 234 Conn. 735, 750, 663 A.2d 948 (1995); State v. Pollitt, 199 Conn. 399, 415, 508 A.2d 1 (1986); State v. Lafferty, 189 Conn. 360, 363, 456 A.2d 272 (1983); the defendant was required to seek a determination by the trial court of his fact-based claim of an undisclosed agreem......