State v. Peay
| Decision Date | 02 November 1973 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Charlie PEAY. |
Peter J. Zaccagnino, Jr., Hartford, for appellant (defendant).
Arnold M. Schwolsky, Asst. State's Atty., with whom, on the brief, was John D. LaBelle, State's Atty., for appellee (state).
Before HOUSE, C.J., and SHAPIRO, LOISELLEE, MacDONALD and BOGDANSKI, JJ.
On a jury trial in the Superior Court in Hartford County, Peay was found guilty on one count of possession of a narcotic drug and on another count of selling a narcotic drug-heroin. On his appeal, the defendant assigned errors in the court's denial of his motion to dismiss the information, its denial of his motion to set aside the jury's verdict, its failure to find certain facts set forth in the defendant's draft finding, and the charge to the jury.
The assignment of error that the court failed to find certain facts claimed in the draft finding was not briefed on the appeal and is, therefore, treated as abandoned. State v. Evans, 165 Conn. 61, 63, 327 A.2d 576; State v. Grayton, 163 Conn. 104, 109, 302 A.2d 246; State v. Bitting, 162 Conn. 1, 3, 291 A.2d 240. Since the denial of a motion to dismiss is not properly assignable as error, we do not consider it. State v. Anderson, 152 Conn. 196, 198, 205 A.2d 488; State v. Smith, 149 Conn. 487, 489, 181 A.2d 446; Maltbie, Conn.App.Proc. § 212.
We find no error in the refusal of the court to charge the jury on the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. What we recently said in Raia v. Topehius, 332 A.2d 93, 165 Conn. 231, 234, is fully applicable to the situation in this case, and the court adequately covered the matter of credibility of witnesses in its charge.
The defendant's attack on the portion of the court's charge regarding the term 'possession' is without merit. The court first instructed the jury on the elements of constructive possession, as well as of actual possession, and the defendant excepted on the grounds that the bill of particulars had alleged actual possession of the narcotic. The court thereafter recalled the jury and referred them to the language of the bill of particulars and the state's allegation that the defendant had actual possession of the narcotic on his person and passed it by hand to the undercover police officer who made the purchase. The defendant took no exception to this corrective and final charge. Not only was the court's charge, as corrected, accurate, but we will not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Amarillo
...not alter our analysis. Further, although the denial of a motion to dismiss is ordinarily not assignable as error; State v. Peay, 165 Conn. 374, 375, 335 A.2d 296 (1973); the defendant's claim will be discussed because it implicates a fundamental constitutional right. United States v. Agurs......
-
State v. Smith
...instruction requested by Smith is permissive, not mandatory, and rests in the sound discretion of the trial court. State v. Peay, 165 Conn. 374, 375, 335 A.2d 296 (1973); Raia v. Topehius, 165 Conn. 231, 234-36, 332 A.2d 93 (1973). The trial court did instruct the jury that, "[t]he credibil......
-
State v. Acklin
...as error unless a fundamental constitutional right is involved. State v. L'Heueux, 166 Conn. 312, 324, 348 A.2d 578; State v. Peay, 165 Conn. 374, 335 A.2d 296; Maltbie, Conn.App.Proc. § 212. Although it is doubtful whether this defendant states a claim of constitutional dimension, he persi......
-
State v. McCarthy
...Judges concurred. --------------- 1 Although the denial of a motion to dismiss is ordinarily not assignable as error; State v. Peay, 165 Conn. 374, 375, 335 A.2d 296 (1973); the defendant's claim will be discussed because it involves a fundamental constitutional right. Klopfer v. North Caro......
-
State v. Golding: a Standardless Standard?
...457 Pa. 255, 257-58, 322A.2d 114 (1974). 17. State v. Uriano, 165 Conn. 104, 106, 328 A.2d 679 (1973). 18. Id. at 106; see State v. Peay, 165 Conn. 374, 375, 335 A.2d 296 (19173) (claimed error in jury charge; Evans review denied). 19. 166 Conn. 312, 348 A.2d 578 (1974). 20. Id. at 315. 21.......