State v. Rich
| Decision Date | 28 December 1942 |
| Citation | 29 A.2d 771,129 Conn. 537 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. RICH (two cases). |
Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; Booth, Judge.
Anthony Rich and Alexander Rich were convicted of conspiracy to maintain a gambling establishment, and they appeal.
No error.
Before MALTBIE, C. J, and BROWN, JENNINGS, ELLS and DICKENSON, JJ.
Philip Reich and Samuel Reich, both of Bridgeport, for appellants.
Lorin W. Willis, State's Atty., and Otto J. Saur, both of Bridgeport, for appellee.
The informations in these cases are identical except that in one Alexander Rich is charged with conspiring with Anthony Rich to maintain a gambling establishment for the purpose of taking bets on horse racing, and in the other Anthony Rich is charged with conspiring with Alexander Rich for the same purpose. The defendants were tried together. They rested immediately upon the conclusion of the state's testimony and claimed that the evidence was insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Both were found guilty, and they appealed.
It is unlawful to occupy a room with apparatus, books or boards or any device for the purpose of making, recording or registering bets or wagers upon the result of horse races. General Statutes, § 6280. Any person who combines or agrees with another or others to accomplish an unlawful object by unlawful means, if one or more of such persons shall do any act in furtherance of such combine or agreement, commits a crime. General Statutes, Cum. Supp.1939, § 1447c.
In support of its charge the state introduced evidence that police officers found the defendant Anthony Rich in a storeroom back of a barber shop. The room was furnished with a stand upon which stood a small radio, and a table upon which were some horse-racing sheets and a telephone. Rich had in hand $11 in one and two dollar bills. Two other men were standing in the room. The police sergeant said, "This is it," whereupon Rich said he did not want to "take the arrest" and asked the police to take his brother. He also said, "If you didn't want me to open up why didn't you tell me," to which the sergeant replied, "Mr. Willis [the state's attorney] has told you through the newspapers that he was going after the horse racing." The sergeant asked him who told him he could open up, and the defendant said he understood "some of the other boys were opening up." The police found the defendant Alexander Rich, brother and alleged co-conspirator of Anthony, in an adjacent, secluded room. The door leading into it was cut in the middle and into the lower half a shelf had been built. In the second room was a desk with two telephones. They, and the one in the first room, were ringing constantly. Alexander was seated at the desk with headphones attached to his head. On the desk in front of him were a number of horse-racing sheets upon which he was making marks and notations. In a corner of the room...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Andrews
...was aware of the nature of the contents of the magazines. State v. Del Vecchio, 145 Conn. 549, 553, 145 A.2d 199; State v. Rich, 129 Conn. 537, 540, 29 A.2d 771. The defendant neither took the witness stand nor offered any evidence. The trial court's finding is buttressed by the unfavorable......
-
State v. Holmes
... ... There was no need to prove a formal agreement between the defendant and Edmonds. It was enough if they knowingly engaged in a mutual plan to do a forbidden act. State v. Rich, 129 Conn. 537, 540, 29 A.2d 771; State v. Kemp, 126 Conn. 60, 79, 9 A.2d 63. [160 Conn. 150] Conspiracy can seldom be proved by direct evidence. It may be inferred from the activities of the accused persons. State v. Faillace, 134 Conn. 181, 185, 56 A.2d 167. It is only in rare instances that ... ...
-
State v. Schafer
...or contest of skill, game, race or endurance of man, beast, bird or machine. This includes horse races and ball games. State v. Rich, 129 Conn. 537, 540, 29 A.2d 771. On December 22, 1966, pursuant to § 54-33f of the General Statutes, the defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence allege......
-
State v. Mclaughlin
...a view to the furtherance of a common criminal purpose or design. United States v. Falcone, 2 Cir., 109 F.2d 579, 581; State v. Rich, 129 Conn. 537, 540, 29 A.2d 771; Lefco v. United States 3 Cir., 74 F.2d 66, 68. The main reliance of the defendants is upon two principles of law which they ......