State v. Lafferty
Citation | 191 Conn. 73,463 A.2d 238 |
Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
Decision Date | 09 August 1983 |
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 the 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.
This case comes before the court following our remand for articulation of the trial court's findings. See State v. Lafferty, 189 Conn. 360, 456 A.2d 272 (1983). The defendant was acquitted, on the grounds of insanity, of embezzling approximately $309,000 from his employer. 1 At a subsequent hearing required by General Statutes § 53a-47(a) 2 the trial court heard the testimony of Dr. Hans Langhammer, a staff psychiatrist at Norwich State Hospital, and Dr. Marvin Steinberg, a psychologist. 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 ordered his release.
With permission, the state appealed to this court claiming that the court erred by releasing the defendant because it concluded that the phrase "a danger to himself or others" in § 53a-47(a) meant 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 contends that the court found only that the defendant was "possibly" a danger to property. In its oral decision, the trial court stated: (Emphasis added.)
In our remand we stated: State v. Lafferty, supra, 189 Conn. 363, 456 A.2d 272. We directed the trial court to "file a memorandum of decision articulating the basis upon which it found the defendant not to be a danger to himself or others." Id.
On March 22, 1983, the trial court filed its articulated memorandum of decision. The court stated that, on the basis of expert testimony, the defendant's "release would not constitute a danger to himself or others in a physical sense." The court then construed § 53a-47(a)(1) and (4) as meaning that "the standard for confinement established in § 53a-47(a)(1) [and] (4) does not encompass damage to property." Finally the court stated that "[e]ven assuming danger to property does come within the purview of this statute," the only such danger cognizable would be "substantial destruction of property."
Nowell v. Nowell, 163 Conn. 116, 121, 302 A.2d 260 (1972). These principles apply to criminal as well as to civil proceedings. State v. Avcollie, 188 Conn. 626, 643, 453 A.2d 418 (1982), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 2088, 77 L.Ed.2d 299 (1983).
The trial court articulated its basis for decision by explaining its construction of the law. The trial court's articulation, however, does not answer the question of whether as a matter of fact the defendant posed a danger to property.
Our order to the trial court on remand was to resolve the factual question of whether the defendant posed a danger to property. Because of this unresolved question of fact, which can be resolved only by the trier of fact, this court is as yet unable to reach the questions of law raised on appeal.
Because the trial court has again failed to make the requisite finding of fact of whether the defendant poses a danger to property, 3 we again remand this case for clarification and articulation. Practice Book § 3060D. In the supervision and control of the proceedings on appeal this court may, on its own motion, "order a judge to take any action necessary to complete the record for the proper presentation of the appeal." Practice Book § 3096.
The case is remanded to the trial court with direction to file a memorandum answering the following questions and articulating the factual basis for its answers: (1) Does the defendant, as a result of a mental disease or defect, pose a danger to the property of others? (2) Is the defendant likely as a result of a mental disease or defect to commit crimes against property as defined in General Statutes chapter 941 or chapter 952?
1 General...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. King
... ... State v. Gonzales, supra, at 435-36, 441 A.2d 852 ... On remand, the trial judge must resolve three questions and report their resolution to this court. State v. Pollitt, supra, 199 Conn. at 417, 508 A.2d 1; State v. Lafferty, 191 Conn. 73, 77, 463 A.2d 238 (1983). He must first determine whether the report is a "statement" under § 749. If so, he must then determine whether all or any portion of the statement contains material that should have been disclosed. If it does, he must then determine whether the ... ...
-
Holmes v. Holmes
...court's decision pursuant to Practice Book § 4061. 4 State v. Wilson, 199 Conn. 417, 434-35, 513 A.2d 620 (1986); State v. Lafferty, 191 Conn. 73, 463 A.2d 238 (1983); Kaplan v. Kaplan, 185 Conn. 42, 46, 440 A.2d 252 (1981); Scherr v. Scherr, 183 Conn. 366, 368-69, 439 A.2d 375 (1981); Powe......
-
Jackson v. Commissioner of Correction, 14559
...the mandate and the opinion of the reviewing court and proceed in conformity with the views expressed therein.' " State v. Lafferty, 191 Conn. 73, 76, 463 A.2d 238 (1983).7 We are puzzled, to say the least, by the dissent's truculent: (1) fear that we have closed the door to a substantial c......
-
Conn. Light & Power Co. v. Proctor
...we are not compelled to remand the present case to the trial court for an articulation of its decision. See, e.g., State v. Lafferty , 191 Conn. 73, 76–77, 463 A.2d 238 (1983) (articulation necessary where trial court failed to make requisite finding of fact); Kaplan v. Kaplan , 185 Conn. 4......