State v. Lemieux
| Decision Date | 17 March 1971 |
| Citation | 160 Conn. 519,280 A.2d 874 |
| Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Robert J. LEMIEUX. |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Edwin M. Lavitt, Special Public Defender, with whom, on the brief, was Matthew J. Forstadt, Hartford, for appellant (defendant).
Robert J. Pigeon, State's Atty., for appellee (State).
Before ALCORN, C.J., and HOUSE, THIM, RYAN and SHAPIRO, JJ.
Robert J. Lemieux was found guilty by a jury which tried him on a charge of robbery with violence. General Statutes § 53-14. His motion to set aside the verdict was denied. He has appealed from his conviction claiming: that because the verdict was not supported by the evidence, the court erred in refusing to set it aside; that there was an error in the charge to the jury; that the court should not have permitted a witness to appear in a uniform; and that the court made an erroneous evidential ruling.
The decision of the court on the motion to set aside the verdict is tested by the evidence as printed in the appendices to the briefs. State v. Fine, 159 Conn. 296, 298, 268 A.2d 649; State v. Cobb, 159 Conn. 31, 32, 266 A.2d 393. From that evidence the jury could reasonably have found the following facts: On September 1, 1968, Paul McGrath had $80 in a wallet on his person when he went to the apartment of Raymond Hitt. After he went into a room with Hitt, the defendant and Carl Osuna entered the room and all three demanded money from him. He gave each of them $20 after they threatened to beat him. They then demanded his last $20 and when he refused to surrender it, all three of them, including the defendant, beat him with their fists and kicked him. When he found his wallet lying next to him it was empty. Witnesses testified that they heard McGrath crying and yelling: 'Please, please, I don't have any more money', and that the defendant, Osuna and Hitt came out of the room leaving McGrath lying on the floor bleeding from cuts around the face and mouth. In the light of this evidence there is no merit whatsoever to the claim that the verdict was unsupported by the evidence.
After the jury had deliberated for some time they sent to the court a note inquiring 'if a juror is acceptable if he states definitely that circumstantial evidence in any case is not enough to call a man guilty'. The court thereupon instructed the jury on the law as it pertains to circumstantial evidence. Following this general instruction on the principles involved, to which no exception was taken, the court illustrated the instruction by two examples. The second of these was the classic one of putting a cat in a closed box containing a mouse and concluding...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hankins v. State
...Johnson v. State, 258 Ind. 683, 284 N.E.2d 517, 519 (1972); State v. Anderson, 270 So.2d 353, 357 (Fla.1972); State v. Lemieux, 160 Conn. 519, 280 A.2d 874, 875 (1971); Barrett v. State, 253 So.2d 806, 809 "Respondent relies heavily on the case of Blakely v. State, 542 P.2d 857 (Wyo.1975). ......
-
State v. Lasley
...Johnson v. State, 258 Ind. 683, 284 N.E.2d 517, 519 (1972); State v. Anderson, 270 So.2d 353, 357 (Fla.1972); State v. Lemieux, 160 Conn. 519, 280 A.2d 874, 875 (1971); Barrett v. State, 253 So.2d 806, 809 Respondent relies heavily on the case of Blakely v. State, 542 P.2d 857 (Wyo.1975). I......
-
Carver v. State
...is forced to appear in prison attire. This issue is without merit.(Citations omitted.) Id. at *14–15(I). See also State v. Lemieux, 160 Conn. 519, 522, 280 A.2d 874 (1971) (no error in permitting victim to testify in uniform when victim on active duty and on leave for trial); People v. Lane......
-
People v. Lane
...consumed a lot of alcohol. The Connecticut Supreme Court reached the same decision with even less discussion in State v. Lemieux, 160 Conn. 519, 522, 280 A.2d 874, 875 (1971), stating only that the robbery victim was serving in the Army when he testified against the defendant and finding no......