State v. Perkins
| Decision Date | 23 June 1959 |
| Citation | 146 Conn. 518,152 A.2d 627 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Leslie PERKINS. STATE of Connecticut v. Richard H. LILLIE. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
George C. Furkiotis, Brideport, with whom, on the brief, were Raymond W. Ganim and George W. Ganim, Bridgeport, for appellants (defendants).
Lorin W. Willis, State's Atty., bridgeport, for appellee (state).
Before DALY, C. J., and BALDWIN, KING, MURPHY and MELLITZ, JJ.
These two appeals were combined by order of the trial court pursuant to the provisions fo § 382 of the Practice Book. The defendants were charged with the crime of possession of burglar tools in the night season, in violation of § 8408 of the 1949 Revision (Rev.1958, § 53-71) of the General Statutes. 1 The defendant in the second case was charged with being a habitual offender.
The trial court found the following unchallenged, material facts: About 1:55 a. m. on August 12, 1957, the defendants were walking along the sidewalk on the south side of Capitol Avenue at Norman Street in Bridgeport. They crossed over to the north side of the avenue some 200 feet west of Park Avenue. This section of Bridgeport is a residential neighborhood. A police radio car, facing westerly on Capitol Avenue, was parked at the intersection of Park Avenue and Capitol Avenue. It was equipped with a spotlight on the driver's side and a red dome light on top, but only the parking lights were on at the time. The defendants walked along the north side of Capitol Avenue for only a short distance and then started to cross to the south side. As they continued walking, the officer in the police car began to drive westerly on Capitol Avenue. He proceeded along the avenue, passing the defendants, and then turned south on Norman Street to Cleveland Avenue, where he turned his car around and came back to Capitol Avenue. He again saw the defendants walking along the south side of Capitol Avenue about twenty-five feet from the police car. He then heard the sound of a metallic object striking the ground at the point where the defendants were walking and saw the defendants continue on their way. After they had walked on a short distance, he went to the spot where they were when he heard the sound and discovered an iron hand bar on the grass by the sidewalk. He overtook the defendants at Capitol and Wood Avenues and asked them what they were doing. The defendant Perkins replied, 'We were just out taking a walk.' The officer then asked the defendants if they had a car and both of them answered, 'No.' A few moments later, in response to a question, the defendants admitted that they did own cars and stated they had left them at a place which was more than a mile from the scene. The officer then called the attention of the defendants to a Pontiac car parked a short distance away on Norman Street, and the defendant Perkins admitted it was his and said that he had left it there because it had broken down. The Pontiac was in good working order and had not broken down.
When the defendants were asked if they had seen the hand bar, Lillie said, 'No,' and Perkins made no reply. Upon further search of the area, another hand bar was found in the grass at the edge of the sidewalk at the spot where the officer had first heard the metallic sound of a falling object. The trunk compartment of the Pontiac car of the defendant Perkins was opened with a key found under the front floor mat, and the following articles were found by the officer: a large sledge hammer, two pry bars, a small sledge hammer, a metal hammer, a ball peen hammer, a screw driver, a toolbox containing wrenches, pliers and screw drivers, another toolbox containing wrenches, and a punch. Under the front floor mat were two screw drivers and four flashlights, the latter not being in working order. Many of these tools were reasonably adapted for use in housebreaking and were of a type customarily used by burglars in forcing the doors and windows of buildings and opening safes. In the questioning by the officer, Perkins stated that the defendants' reason for being in the neighborhood where they were found was that they were looking for a 'score,' which Perkins explained, was 'a place to hit.' He further stated to the police that Lillie was the one who had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Brown
...only in the container in which they were delivered and that there was no proof that the defendant so held them. See State v. Perkins, 146 Conn. 518, 522, 152 A.2d 627, to the same effect. Authorization to sell drugs is, in this case, a fact 'inconsistent with guilt,' whether it be denominat......
-
St. Joseph's Living Ctr. v. Town of Windham
...527-28, 690 A.2d 412 (1997). In short, "[t]he conclusions of the trial court are to be tested by [its] finding[s]. State v. Perkins, 146 Conn. 518, 522, 152 A.2d 627 (1959); Gorman v. American Sumatra Tobacco Corp., 146 Conn. 383, 386, 151 A.2d 341 (1959)." Camp Isabella Freedman of Connect......
-
State v. Giorgio
...The trial court's conclusions must be tested by the finding. State v. Villafane, 164 Conn. 637, 638, 325 A.2d 251; State v. Perkins, 146 Conn. 518, 522, 152 A.2d 627. A conclusion must stand unless it is legally or logically inconsistent with the facts found or unless it involves the applic......
-
Scott v. State
...People v. Faginkrantz, 21 Ill.2d 75, 171 N.Ed.2d 5 (1960); State v. Puckett, 237 S.C. 369, 117 S.E.2d 369 (1960); State v. Perkins, 146 Conn. 518, 152 A.2d 627 (1959); Commonwealth v. Dionisio, 178 Pa.Super. 330, 116 A.2d 109 (1955); Burnette v. Commonwealth, 194 Va. 785, 75 S.E.2d. 482 (19......