State v. Perkins

Citation88 Conn. 360,91 A. 265
PartiesSTATE v. PERKINS.
Decision Date13 July 1914
CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

Appeal from Superior Court, New London County; Gardiner Greene, Judge.

Lillian M. Perkins was charged with manslaughter, and from a judgment of acquittal, the state appeals. No error.

Hadlai A. Hull, State's Atty., of New London, for the State. Jeremiah J. Desmond and Charles V. James, both of Norwich, for appellee.

RORABACK, J. The record discloses three reasons of appeal, two of which relate to the charge of the court upon the question of self-defense when a person is attacked in his own household. The third one complains of the action of the court in instructing the jury as to the rights of the father and mother as joint guardians of their minor children.

The accused is charged with the crime of manslaughter in causing the death of Thomas V. Coatchaly at Ledyard in New London county by shooting him with a shotgun. Coatchaly was a Greek, and came to this country about 1907. He married a daughter of the accused in April, 1912. He lived with his wife and mother-in-law upon the Perkins homestead until October, 1912. At this time he quarreled with his wife and left her. In the month of December he went to Texas, and his wife continued to live with her mother. Upon February 12, 1913, Mrs. Coatchaly gave birth to a child, the offspring of the marriage with the deceased. In April, 1913, Coatchaly came to New London and proposed through his attorney that his wife come to New London and live with him. She did not accept this proposition. During the month of April he made two or three unsuccessful attempts to see his child.

The defendant offered evidence to prove and claimed to have proven the following: After the baby was born Coatchaly never asked his wife to live with him, and that he posted her; that in a letter to his wife he threatened to take the child away from her, and at one time told his wife that he would kill her and her mother if they did not do as he wanted. At another time she told him that she had told her mother he was coming, and that her mother did not wish him to go to the house. Coatchaly said, "I don't care for the law. If I don't see my baby I'll kill every one of you." Coatchaly was then mad, excited, and nervous. That on the afternoon of June 3, 1913, Coatchaly came to the house of the accused and demanded admission which being refused he immediately proceeded to break down the doors of the house, all the while threatening to kill the accused. After he had broken down the storm porch door, the accused warned him that she had two revolvers, and that if he broke through the double house doors and attempted to come in she would shoot him. Notwithstanding this warning Coatchaly continued his violent assault upon the double doors, and, as the right-hand door was giving way, he said to the accused, with an oath, "Now I've got you, and I'll cut your guts out." That the accused at the time of his breaking into her house believed that the deceased intended to carry out his threats to kill her, and believed that her life was in imminent danger from Coatchaly, who was a strong, robust man, 28 or 29 years of age, weighing about 180 pounds. After the accused had warned the deceased that she would shoot if he broke in, and after he had broken down the right half of the house doors, and was attempting to enter, the accused attempted to fire a revolver at him, but it would not work. She then thought of the shotgun, which was kept near by, and fired at Coatchaly. The accused shot the deceased as he was breaking into the house to prevent his entering and taking her life. While living with the accused he had beaten her and threatened to take her life. At the time when the deceased attempted to break into the house the accused Was alone in the house, except that she had in her charge two infants, one her son's child, 11 months old, the other her daughter's child, between 3 and 4 months old.

Many of the claims of the defendant as to the facts surrounding the shooting were controverted by the state. The state claimed that it might fairly be inferred from the evidence that when Coatchaly was breaking in the doors and attempting to make a violent entry into the house, the accused had no reason to believe that he intended to do or would do her, or either of the children, any harm or violence, or that he intended to do or would do anything but to gain access to his child. The state claimed to have proven that Coatchaly's only motive in breaking and entering was to obtain access to his child. It was conceded by the state that Coatchaly was a trespasser in so breaking and entering. Yet it is claimed that no necessity existed for killing him for the simple purpose of preventing him from breaking into the house to see his child. It was said in substance that,' admitting that all the conditions existed substantially as the defendant contends, she was guilty of manslaughter, unless it appeared that she had reasonable grounds to believe that Coatchaly intended to kill or seriously injure her, or that she was in imminent danger of death or of great bodily harm.

Although the evidence was conflicting, the Jury had the right to believe the version of the defendant and her witnesses as to the important facts surrounding this unfortunate affair.

The evidence and claims of the parties were such as to require a charge upon the theory that Mrs. Perkins' motive in shooting the deceased was to save her own life or to protect herself from any bodily harm. An assault on one's house can be regarded as an assault on the person, within the meaning of the law with reference to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Pellegrino v. O'Neill
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • 9 Octubre 1984
    ...which dates from the constitution of 1818, affords a constitutional right to judicial redress of civil grievances. State v. Perkins, 88 Conn. 360, 368, 91 A. 265 (1914). It is therefore beyond dispute that the plaintiffs herein have a constitutional basis for the claims which they are attem......
  • Gentile v. Altermatt
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • 5 Agosto 1975
    ...the constitution of 1818 and in its several revisions and reenactments, and has been referred to as the right to redress. State v. Perkins, 88 Conn. 360, 368, 91 A. 265. Its importance in this dispute is illustrated by the following language from Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113, 134, 24 L.Ed.......
  • State v. Hamric
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • 21 Noviembre 1966
    ...Alberty v. United States, 162 U.S. 499, 16 S.Ct. 864, 40 L.Ed. 1051; Carroll v. State, 23 Ala. 28, 58 Am.Dec. 282; State v. Perkins, 88 Conn. 360, 91 A. 265, L.R.A.1915A 73; Wilson v. State, 30 Fla. 234, 11 So. 556, 17 L.R.A. 654; Powell v. State, 101 Ga. 9, 29 S.E. 309, 65 Am.St.Rep. 277; ......
  • Falco v. Institute of Living
    • United States
    • Appellate Court of Connecticut
    • 6 Octubre 1998
    ...169 Conn. 267, 284, 363 A.2d 1 (1975), appeal dismissed, 423 U.S. 1041, 96 S.Ct. 763, 46 L.Ed.2d 631 (1976); State v. Perkins, 88 Conn. 360, 368, 91 A. 265 (1914). The inadequacy of the factual predicate produced by the plaintiff to establish that the right to redress attaches in this case ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT