State v. Rafanello
| Decision Date | 03 March 1964 |
| Citation | 199 A.2d 13,151 Conn. 453 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. John M. RAFANELLO. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
Morton C. Hansen, Jr., Simsbury, with whom, on the brief, was David L. Gussak, Manchester, for appellant (defendant).
Harry W. Hultgren, Jr., Asst. State's Atty., with whom, on the brief, were John D. LaBelle, State's Atty., and George D. Stoughton, Asst. State's Atty., for appellee (state).
Before KING, C. J., MURPHY, SHEA, and ALCORN, JJ., and SHAPIRO, Superior Court Judge.
The defendant was tried before a jury on an information alleging, in its first part, that 'John D. LaBelle, State's attorney for the County of Hartford, accuses John M. Rafanello, of Bristol, Connecticut, of POOL SELLING, and charges that at the City of Bristol, on or about the twenty-fourth day of July, 1961, the said John M. Rafanello was concerned in buying and selling pools upon the results of horse races, in violation of Section 53-295 as amended by Public Act 528 of the 1961 Public Acts.' The second part of the information charged the defendant with being a second offender, to which he pleaded guilty, and that part of the information is not in issue. The jury rendered a verdict of guilty on the first part of the information. The defendant made a motion to set aside the verdict, which the court denied, and this appeal is from the final judgment.
The police surprised Alfred Bartolucci, at his place of employment, in the act of telephoning bets on horse races, which were recorded on slips of paper found in his possession. There was evidence from which the jury could have found that the person to whom Bartolucci was telephoning the bets was the defendant. The jury could also have found that Bartolucci had an arrangement with the defendant whereby the latter would pay Bartolucci a commission on bets placed through him, that the defendant would furnish any money necessary to pay the winners, and that betting accounts between Bartolucci and the defendant were settled weekly on Sunday. The only defense made at the trial was that the defendant was not the person to whom Bartolucci was talking on the telephone.
There is no dispute that Bartolucci was in the act of telephoning bets on horse races to someone and that the slips of paper which the police found in his possession were records of these bets. Nor is there any denial that the betting transaction would, if proved, involve the defendant in an illegal activity under § 53-295, Public Acts 1961, No. 528, § 1. The defendant's only attack on the verdict is that the state's evidence fails to support a conviction for pool selling, which has been defined as 'the receiving from several persons of wagers on the same event, the total sum of which is to be given the winners, subject ordinarily to a deduction of a commission by the seller of the pool.' State v. Fico, 147 Conn. 426, 428, 162 A.2d 697, 699. Stated in another way, the defendant asserts that while the evidence would have warranted a conviction for taking bets on horse races, it did not support a conviction for pool selling, although both acts are illegal under the statute.
It is clear that if the information had charged the defendant with 'pool selling * * * in violation of § 53-295 as amended by Public Act 528 of the 1961 Public Acts,' it would have been a sufficient information under the rules. Practice Book, 1963, § 493; State v. Mele, 140 Conn. 398, 402, 100 A.2d 570. The statute has been construed to be 'directed against that form of gambling known as 'pool-selling,' including bets or wagers on the result of any trial of skill, speed, or endurance.' State v. Scott, 80 Conn. 317, 320, 68 A. 258, 259; State v. Fico, supra. The defendant maintains, however, that the information, by particularizing that the defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Moye
...claimed error. See Practice Book, 1978, §§ 315, 3063; State v. Fredericks, 154 Conn. 68, 72, 221 A.2d 585 (1966); State v. Rafanello, 151 Conn. 453, 456, 199 A.2d 13 (1964). An exception to this rule, however, permits a claim to be raised for the first time on appeal where it involves the d......
-
State v. Cobb
......Ed. 2d 913 (1988)]. A defendant can gain nothing from [the claim that the pleadings are insufficient] without showing that he was in fact prejudiced in his defense on the merits and that substantial injustice was done to him because of the language of the information. State v. Rafanello, 151 Conn. 453, 457, 199 A.2d 13 (1964) .. State v. Spigarolo, supra, 382 ." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Kyles, 221 Conn. 643, 652-53, 607 A.2d 355 (1992) . The panel did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion. . The defendant's ......
-
State v. Kyles
...defense on the merits and that substantial injustice was done to him because of the language of the information. State v. Rafanello, 151 Conn. 453, 457, 199 A.2d 13 (1964)...." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Spigarolo, supra, 210 Conn. at 382, 556 A.2d 112. When the state know......
-
State v. Coleman
...nonprejudicial, are no longer fatal. Practice Book §§ 523-531; State v. Beaulieu, 164 Conn. 620, 625, 325 A.2d 263; State v. Rafanello, 151 Conn. 453, 456-457, 199 A.2d 13; State v. Mola, 128 Conn. 407, 410-411, 23 A.2d 126; State v. McGee, 81 Conn. 696, 699, 72 A. 141. The constitution sim......