State v. Nelson
| Decision Date | 08 July 1952 |
| Citation | 90 A.2d 157,139 Conn. 124 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. NELSON. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
Abram W. Spiro, Bridgeport, (Irving Levine, Danbury, on the brief), for the appellant, defendant.
Lorin W. Willis, State's Atty., Bridgeport (Otto J. Saur, Assistant State's Atty., Bridgeport, on the brief), for the appellee, state.
Before BROWN, C. J., and JENNINGS, BALDWIN, INGLIS, and O'SULLIVAN, JJ.
The defendant has appealed from a judgment rendered upon his conviction of the crime of arson. In addition to assigning errors in the finding, he claims that the trial court's conclusions are not supported by the subordinate facts found and that the evidence does not warrant a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. One question in particular which he raises is whether it was proper for the court to take into consideration his failure to testify in reaching its conclusions. He also claims error in one ruling on evidence.
So far as the court's conclusion of guilt is concerned, the defendant's assignment of error that upon all of the evidence that conclusion could not reasonably be arrived at beyond a reasonable doubt fully protects his rights without reference to his assignments directed to the finding. State v. Guastamachio, 137 Conn. 179, 183, 75 A.2d 429. The court might reasonably have found the following facts: At about 3:45 in the afternoon of Saturday, December 9, 1950, a passer-by noticed that a summer cottage in New Fairfield owned by the defendant and his wife was on fire. In response to a call, the local fire department reached the scene at about 4:20 o'clock. By that time, as was disclosed by an examination made after the fire was out, it had been burning for an hour and a half or two hours and so had started before 3 o'clock. The cottage was a one-story building having a basement and an attic, sole access to which was by a trap door in the first-floor ceiling. The fire was clearly of incendiary origin because it had been started in three places: the attic, the kitchen cupboard on the main floor, and the basement. In close proximity to each of these places there were several bottles or jars of gasoline over the mouths of most of which was only tissue paper. There was no evidence that the cottage had been broken into prior to the arrival of the firemen.
The defendant was a resident of New York City. He admitted to police that he had been at his cottage on the day in question but claimed that he had left at about 1 o'clock and gone directly home. He had been seen in the neighborhood, however, at about 3 o'clock. He claimed that his purpose in being at the property was to clean up after a recent storm, but there was evidence that he had been there for that purpose on the preceding Saturday.
The cottage was insured against loss by fire in the amount of $10,000, which was not excessive. The contents were insured for $4000. The defendant made claim of loss under the policy. While the fire was in progress, most of the contents of the house were moved outside by the firemen, where they were left for several days. During that period additional damage by way of tearing, breaking and marring was done to some of the furniture. During the same period the bottles of gasoline were removed from the house to a nearby wood. The defendant had been on the property during that time.
The defendant offered no evidence and did not testify...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Brown
...a prima facie case the failure of the defendant to testify becomes a fact which the jury are entitled to consider. See State v. Nelson, 139 Conn. 124, 127, 90 A.2d 157. The defendant took no exception to the charge, was found guilty and sentenced. Thereafter followed a number of habeas corp......
-
State v. Andrews
...of the prima facie case which the state had made out against him. See State v. Pundy, 147 Conn. 7, 12, 156 A.2d 193; State v. Nelson, 139 Conn. 124, 127, 90 A.2d 157; 8 Wigmore, Evidence, p. 427 (McNaughton Rev.1961). For other current legal thinking on this phase of the case, see Model Pen......
-
State v. Hughes
...would still need to be proved, at least prima facie, by the state, before a finding of guilty could be made. See State v. Nelson, 139 Conn. 124, 127, 90 A.2d 157. We make the foregoing comment in order that it may be clear that no requirement of due process has been overlooked; and we have ......
-
State v. Machia
...explanation or contradiction is reasonably called for. State v. Lenihan, 151 Conn. 552, 555, 200 A.2d 476 (1964); State v. Nelson, 139 Conn. 124, 127, 90 A.2d 157 (1952). The evidence that the jury commissioners made the occupational exemptions of § 51-218 available to men as well as women ......