State v. Nathan
| Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
| Writing for the Court | Before BROWN; O'SULLIVAN |
| Citation | 86 A.2d 322,138 Conn. 485 |
| Parties | STATE v. NATHAN. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
| Decision Date | 22 January 1952 |
Page 322
v.
NATHAN.
[138 Conn. 486] Henry T. Istas, New Haven, George Chisaski, New Haven, for the appellant-defendant.
George R. Tiernan, Prosecuting Atty., New Haven, for the appellee-state.
Before [138 Conn. 485] BROWN, C. J., and JENNINGS, BALDWIN, INGLIS and O'SULLIVAN, JJ.
[138 Conn. 486] O'SULLIVAN, Judge.
The defendant was tried to the court on an information containing three counts. He was charged, in the first, with having in his possession certain obscene motion picture films, contrary to § 8567 of the General Statutes, and, in the second, with carrying
Page 323
on his person a dangerous weapon, contrary to § 8540. The court found the defendant guilty on these two counts only. He has appealed from the judgment rendered thereon. His sole assignment of error is that the evidence was insufficient to prove his guilt on either count beyond a reasonable doubt.There was evidence from which the court could reasonably have found the following facts: About 8 p.m. on May 16, 1951, a police officer of the city of New Haven stopped a Plymouth coupe which the defendant was operating on Orange Street. The officer first searched the defendant and found in his trouser pocket a knife with a blade four and one-quarter inches long. When asked why he had the knife, the defendant said that he used it in performing a magician's trick. He further said that he got the knife in Japan, while he was in the service.
[138 Conn. 487] The officer then searched the coupe and discovered in the trunk of the car two rolls of sixteen-millimeter motion picture film and a sixteen-millimeter motion picture projector. He inquired what was on the films. The defendant said that he did not know. While at the detective bureau, to which he was taken, he refused to allow the use of the projector to run off the motion pictures. He made conflicting statements as to how he acquired the films. At first he stated that he had bought them in Philadelphia from a friend engaged in the photographic business, only to deny this somewhat later in the evening, refusing, at that time, to make any further statement to explain where he obtained them. Another projector was eventually brought to the bureau, and the pictures, when shown, proved to be disgustingly obscene. At no time did the officers inquire of the defendant as to the use he proposed to make of the films, nor did he volunteer any explanation on that subject. He did not testify in his own behalf, and he did not offer any evidence at the close of the state's case.
The first count alleged a criminal offense under § 8567 of the General Statutes. 1 The mere possession of obscene motion picture films is not forbidden by the statute. Possession becomes unlawful only if the possessor intends 'to sell, lend, give, offer or show' them. [138 Conn. 488] A conviction was warranted, then, only upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had possession of the films and that he had the specific intent to use them for one of the purposes prohibited by statute. State v. Newman, 127 Conn. 398, 400, 17 A.2d 774; 1...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Brown
...Draft No. 4 (1955), § 1.13 and comments. Our cases are in accord. State v. Orsini, 155 Conn. 367, 374, 232 A.2d 907; State v. Nathan, 138 Conn. 485, 489, 86 A.2d 322; State v. McGee, 88 Conn. 353, 359, 91 A. 4 See Chief Judge Bazelon's concurring opinion in United States v. Eichberg, 142 U.......
-
State v. Oldham, No. 9970
...items of value were taken from Upshaw. Specific intent may, and ordinarily must, be proved by circumstantial evidence. State v. Nathan, 138 Conn. 485, 86 A.2d 322 (1952); State v. Siegler, 12 N.J. 520, 97 A.2d 469 (1953); 21 Am.Jur.2d 164, sec. 82. As this court stated in State v. Johnson, ......
-
State v. Hudson County News Co., Nos. A--126
...252, 42 S.Ct. 301, 66 L.Ed. 604. Section 8567 specifically requires proof of possession with intent to sell, etc. See State v. Nathan, 138 Conn. 485, 487, 86 A.2d 322. Whether guilty knowledge is to be implied as an essential part of a crime when the statutory definition does not mention it......
-
State v. Ruiz
...trier is an unreasonable one. Walter v. Home National Bank & Trust Co. of Meriden, 148 Conn. 635, 638, 173 A.2d 503. State v. Nathan, 138 Conn. 485, 488, 86 A.2d 322. A person's intention may be inferred from his conduct; State v. Pallanck, 146 Conn. 527, 531, 152 A.2d 633; Kiernan v. B......
-
State v. Brown
...Draft No. 4 (1955), § 1.13 and comments. Our cases are in accord. State v. Orsini, 155 Conn. 367, 374, 232 A.2d 907; State v. Nathan, 138 Conn. 485, 489, 86 A.2d 322; State v. McGee, 88 Conn. 353, 359, 91 A. 4 See Chief Judge Bazelon's concurring opinion in United States v. Eichberg, 142 U.......
-
State v. Oldham, No. 9970
...items of value were taken from Upshaw. Specific intent may, and ordinarily must, be proved by circumstantial evidence. State v. Nathan, 138 Conn. 485, 86 A.2d 322 (1952); State v. Siegler, 12 N.J. 520, 97 A.2d 469 (1953); 21 Am.Jur.2d 164, sec. 82. As this court stated in State v. Johnson, ......
-
State v. Hudson County News Co., Nos. A--126
...252, 42 S.Ct. 301, 66 L.Ed. 604. Section 8567 specifically requires proof of possession with intent to sell, etc. See State v. Nathan, 138 Conn. 485, 487, 86 A.2d 322. Whether guilty knowledge is to be implied as an essential part of a crime when the statutory definition does not mention it......
-
State v. Ruiz
...trier is an unreasonable one. Walter v. Home National Bank & Trust Co. of Meriden, 148 Conn. 635, 638, 173 A.2d 503. State v. Nathan, 138 Conn. 485, 488, 86 A.2d 322. A person's intention may be inferred from his conduct; State v. Pallanck, 146 Conn. 527, 531, 152 A.2d 633; Kiernan v. B......