State v. Neubauer
Decision Date | 28 June 1963 |
Docket Number | No. CR,CR |
Citation | 2 Conn.Cir.Ct. 169,197 A.2d 93 |
Court | Circuit Court of Connecticut. Connecticut Circuit Court, Appellate Division |
Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Alfred NEUBAUER. 1-2244. |
Sidney Vogel, Norwalk, for appellant (defendant).
George Carroll, Asst. Pros. Atty., for appellee (state).
The defendant was found guilty of obstructing, resisting or abusing an officer in violation of § 53-165 of the General Statutes in a trial by the court and has appealed. His assignment of errors is based on the denial of requested changes in the finding, on the conclusions of the court, and on the conclusion that on all the evidence the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The ultimate question to be determined by the assignments regarding the finding is essentially the same as that presented by the defendant's general assignment of error, viz., whether on all of the evidence the trial court was in error in finding the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. '[W]here such a situation is presented, pursuit of claimed corrections of the finding will seldom be necessary or profitable, as the rights of an accused person will be fully protected by the comprehensive inquiry required by the general assignment pertaining to guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, upon all the evidence.' State v. Guilfoyle, 109 Conn. 124, 139, 145 A. 761, 766; State v. Gotsch, 23 Conn.Sup. 395, 396, 184 A.2d 56; State v. Riley, 24 Conn.Sup. 235, 238, 189 A.2d 518.
The evidence discloses that the police officers were on the defendant's premises to investigate an attempted breaking and entering, the third such occurrence within recent months. In the course of the investigation, the officers put questions to the defendant, some of whose replies were profane, and the defendant ordered the officers off the premises, called the officers vile 'names,' told them that they could go to 'hell' and that he would 'boot' a certain portion of the officer's body 'out of here.' The defendant at no time made any physical movement, threat or motion of violence, and his feelings were expressed only in words. He did not, in fact, prevent either officer from conducting the investigation, nor were they in fear of the defendant. A thorough investigation was completed by the officers; their activities were not restricted while they were on the defendant's premises. The arrest was made two days after the occurrence.
The state has based its prosecution on the elements of obstructing and abusing. The element of resisting is not before us since it was not argued, either orally or in the briefs. It is assumed that all the remaining requirements of the statute were met.
The single question to be determined on this appeal is: Did the defendant obstruct or abuse the officers in violation of § 53-165 by intemperate and vile language? Resistance to officers was a common-law offense. 39 Am.Jur. 506, Obstructing Justice, § 8. This crime was incorporated into our statutes in 1702. Acts & Laws, 1702, p. 91. The statute then used the words 'resist or abuse.' In the 1835 revision, the section was altered to read 'hinder, obstruct, resist, or abuse.' Statutes, 1835, p. 131, § 53. In the revision of 1875 (p. 507, § 7), the words became 'obstruct, resist, or abuse' and have so continued until the present date. Courts, in construing statutes, consider their legislative history, their language, their purpose, and the circumstances surrounding their enactment. Delinks v. McGowan, 148 Conn. 614, 618, 173 A.2d 488; Cassidy v. Tait, 140 Conn. 156, 160, 98 A.2d 808. A criminal statute, being penal, is to be construed strictly. Daggett v. State, 4 Conn. 60, 63.
Rawson v. State, 19 Conn. 292, 299.
The conclusion of the court that the defendant abused the police officers while they were engaged in the performance of duty imports a construction to § 53-165 to the effect that vile, intemperate language with no physical involvement of any kind is a violation. There are generally in existence three types of statutes relating to resisting arrest. The first contains the single word 'resist,' the second the words 'resist, obstruct and oppose,' and the third, 'resist, obstruct and abuse.' Under the statutes containing several words, it is obvious that the offense can be committed by acts which would not constitute an offense under statutes merely employing the word 'resist.' Under a statute containing the words 'obstruct, restrict or oppose,' it has been held that 'employment of indirect means is sufficient.' 39 Am.Jur. 507, Obstructing Justice, § 8. A statute which employs 'resist,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Aloi
...with an officer. State v. Harris, 4 Conn. Cir. Ct. 534, 538-40, 236 A.2d 479 (1967) (construing § 53-165); State v. Neubauer, 2 Conn. Cir. Ct. 169, 172-74, 197 A.2d 93 (1963) In the absence of decisions from either this court or the Supreme Court, we look to the decisions of courts in other......
-
Zalaski. v. City of Hartford
...justice in violation of then-extant Conn. Gen Stat. § 53a–165 (internal quotation marks omitted)); State v. Neubauer, 2 Conn.Cir.Ct. 169, 174, 197 A.2d 93 (App.Div.1963) (requiring only that conduct, to obstruct officer, “in some manner, hinder the officer or make his job difficult”). On qu......
-
State v. Harris
...296, 299, 206 A.2d 438; State v. Engle, 115 Conn. 638, 648, 162 A. 922. Our statute, § 53-165, as we pointed out in State v. Neubauer, 2 Conn.Cir. 169, 172, 197 A.2d 93, is intended to prevent something less than the use of force, whether active or passive, direct or indirect, as may be imp......
-
State v. Tages
...an offense even under a statute such as that in Connecticut unless the officer's job is made more difficult. State v. Neubauer, 2 Conn.Cir. 169, 197 A.2d 93 (1963). Policemen are no more exempt from criticism than cabinet ministers. See Rex v. Cook, 11 Can.Crim.Cas. 32 (British Columbia 190......