State v. Lindsay
| Decision Date | 21 May 1929 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. LINDSAY. |
Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, New Haven County; Robert L Munger, Judge.
Mae Lindsay was convicted on trial to the court under an information charging operation of a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, and she appeals. No error.
William A. Bree and Samuel M. Silver, both of New Haven, for appellant.
Edwin S. Pickett, Pros. Atty., of New Haven, for the State.
Argued before WHEELER, C.J., and MALTBIE, HAINES, HINMAN, and BANKS JJ.
On October 17, 1928, in the criminal court of common pleas for the county of New Haven, the defendant was convicted of the offense of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Thereupon, in order to invoke the greater penalty provided for second offenders, the prosecuting attorney filed against her a further information, stating that previously, on June 21 1927, she had been convicted of a similar offense in the city court of New Haven. In proof of this charge he offered in evidence a judgment file of the city court signed by Joseph Weiner, assistant clerk, and also the original complaint and warrant in the action, upon which was noted the fact that a plea of nolo contendere had been entered and a sentence imposed, but which did not bear the signature of the judge or clerk. The defendant objected to the admission of both documents. Joseph Weiner, then called as a witness, testified that the judgment file had been prepared by him on the day before from memoranda and notations on the back of the original file and the entries in the original docket of the court, all unsigned, but the latter in the handwriting of the clerk of the court. Thereupon the documents were admitted in evidence against the objection of the defendant.
The judgment file sets forth that on June 21, 1927, the defendant was convicted of the crime of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, and was then sentenced. It appears from its recitals that the execution of the sentence was later suspended, and in drawing the judgment file the date of that suspension was treated as the date of the rendition of the judgment, and the judgment file is otherwise lacking in matter of form. It does, however, adequately set forth the fact of the defendant's conviction and sentence, and she does not now seek, as she could not obtain, any advantage from its merely technical imperfections. From the charter of the city of New Haven, of which we take judicial notice, it appears that it is the duty of the clerk of the city court to keep its criminal files and records, and that each assistant clerk has all the power and may perform all the duties of the clerk, subject to his direction. Special Laws of 1899, p. 438, § 169; Special Laws of 1905, p. 914, § 26. It is one of the duties of clerks of courts, except in special cases, to draw up or supervise the drawing up of judgment files and to sign them as representative of the court whose acts they recount. See Practice Book, p. 270, § § 125, 126; General Statutes, § 5534. Upon its face the judgment file here in question bore no imperfections which would affect its admissibility or its weight as authentic evidence of the prior conviction of the accused.
The defendant objects to it, however, because it was made up more than a year after the defendant was convicted of the offense charged from unsigned memoranda upon the original information and writ and upon the docket of the court. There is a distinction between the judgment of the court, such notations as in the present case appear upon the original complaint and in the docket of the court, and the judgment file. The judgment is the determination or sentence of the law speaking through the court, pronounced or made known in some...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Crump, 11224
...particular authentication but, appearing as made by him in the appropriate place, may be presumed to be accurate." State v. Lindsay, 109 Conn. 239, 243, 146 A. 290 (1929). In this case, the defendant was arrested on February 19, 1981, pursuant to an arrest warrant. On February 20, 1981, he ......
-
State v. Mobley, 6-337571
...be prepared from them and signed by the clerk or any assistant clerk having authority to act in his stead." State v. Lindsay, 109 Conn. 239, 242-43, 146 A. 290 (1929). It is the formal nature of a judgment file, as contrasted with less formal docket entries, that contributes to the conclusi......
-
Bonner v. City of New Haven
... ... affect[ ] the fairness and integrity of or undermine[ ] ... public confidence in the judicial proceeding at issue. See ... State v. Hinckley, 198 Conn. 77, 87-88, 502 A.2d 388 ... (1985)." Id., 723 ... Turning to the merits of the city’s ... [ 8 ] The court takes judicial notice of the ... city’s charter. See Dugas v. Beauregard State v ... Lindsay, 109 Conn. 239, 241-42, 146 A. 290, 291 ... (1929) ... [ 9 ] At oral ... ...
-
Town of Brookfield v. Candlewood Shores Estates, Inc., 12702
...note, however, that the judgment file which is "the proper evidence of the rendition of the judgment and its terms"; State v. Lindsay, 109 Conn. 239, 243, 146 A. 290 (1929); Brown v. Cray, 88 Conn. 141, 146, 89 A. 1123 (1914); shows that judgment was rendered not on January 25, 1985, the da......