State v. Pisano
| Citation | 141 A. 660,107 Conn. 630 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
| Decision Date | 04 May 1928 |
| Parties | STATE v. PISANO. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Middlesex County; Alfred C. Baldwin Judge.
Edward Pisano was, on information and trial to court, convicted of arson, and he appeals. No error.
Frank Covello, of Hartford, Don Cambria, of Middletown, and Francis A. Pallotti, of Hartford, for appellant.
Ernest A. Inglis, State's Atty., and Bertrand E. Spencer, both of Middletown, for the State.
Argued before WHEELER, C.J., and MALTBIE, HAINES, HINMAN, and BANKS JJ.
The accused, having elected trial by the court without a jury has been found guilty of the crime of arson, and has appealed. He asks to have a number of the paragraphs of the finding stricken out, but they are all supported by credible evidence, and must stand. He also asks to have added to the finding many additional facts which he had included in his request for a finding. A number of these are not admitted or undisputed, and cannot be added; but others should have been found because they were either admitted or undisputed; they were evidently omitted because the trial court considered them immaterial; but a trial court is rarely justified in failing to find facts which are established by the evidence and which a party asks to have incorporated in the finding upon that ground. In this case, however, the most that could be said would be that, if included, a somewhat more complete story of the case would be presented. As long as the finding as made must stand, they could not affect the result, and hence their omission is no ground for relief to the appellant. Kurtz v. Farrington, 104 Conn. 257, 260, 132 A. 540, 48 A.L.R. 259.
The trial court found that the state failed to prove any motive for the act of the defendant in setting the fire, but it states among its conclusions that the motive which actuated him was his desire to enjoy the excitement it would cause. These statements are hardly consistent; for the latter must be, at least, an inference from the facts in evidence, and, if the trial court drew that inference, it should have found the circumstance as a fact. We construe the finding as meaning that the state proved no special motive, but the court drew the inference it states in its conclusion. The accused in his appeal does not attack this portion of the finding, but his claim is that the trial court could not find him guilty, in the absence of proof of motive. This is, of course, not so. Proof of motive is never necessary to support a conclusion of guilt otherwise sufficiently established, however significant its presence or absence, or its sufficiency, may be as bearing upon the issue of guilt or innocence. State v. Rathbun, 74 Conn. 524, 529, 51 A. 540.
The malice which is a necessary element in the crime of arson need not be express, but may be implied; it need not take the form of malevolence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Annunziato
...significant its presence or absence, or its sufficiency, may be as bearing upon the issue of guilt or innocence.' State v. Pisano, 107 Conn. 630, 632, 141 A. 660, 661.' State v. Guilfoyle, 109 Conn. 124, 140, 145 A. 761. 767. The presence or absence of motive, however, is a circumstance to ......
-
Commonwealth v. McLaughlin
...is identical to the ordinary meaning of the word "malice." See Commonwealth v. Lamothe, 343 Mass. 417, 419 (1961), quoting State v. Pisano, 107 Conn. 630, 632 (1928); Commonwealth v. York, supra. Third, she described malice as "used in the sense of improper, selfish motive," rather than "wr......
-
State v. Joyce
...v. Famiglietti, 219 Conn. 605, 614-15, 595 A.2d 306 (1991); State v. Ruffin, 206 Conn. 678, 681, 539 A.2d 144 (1988); State v. Pisano, 107 Conn. 630, 632, 141 A. 660 (1928). "[T]he state is under no obligation to show a motive of the accused to commit the crime charged.... Proof of motive i......
-
State v. Davis
...State v. Scott, 118 Ariz. 383, 576 P.2d 1383 (1978); People v. Green, 146 Cal.App.3d 369, 194 Cal.Rptr. 128 (1983); State v. Pisano, 107 Conn. 630, 141 A. 660 (1928); Commonwealth v. Lamothe, 343 Mass. 417, 179 N.E.2d 245 (1961); 4 People v. McCarty, 303 Mich. 629, 6 N.W.2d 919 (1942); Stat......