State v. Robertson
| Decision Date | 16 November 1976 |
| Citation | 172 Conn. 9,372 A.2d 128 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Lioyd B. ROBERTSON. |
Michael A. Connor, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, Hartford, for appellant (defendant).
Richard A. Schatz, Asst. State's Atty., with whom, on the brief, was George D. Stoughton, State's Atty., for appellee (state).
Before HOUSE, C.J., and LOISELLE, BOGDANSKI, LONGO and BARBER, JJ.
Following a trial to a jury in the Superior Court in Hartford County, the defendant was found guilty of robbery in the second degree and appealed to this court from the judgment. Two claims of error have been pressed on the appeal: (1) that the trial court erred in overruling the defendant's objection to the admission into evidence of a police photograph of the defendant, and (2) that the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion to set aside the verdict, it being the defendant's claim that the evidence was not sufficient to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
The photograph was admitted into evidence without any marking appearing thereon and there is no claim that the procedure employed by the police using the photograph for identification purposes was impermissibly suggestive. Rather, the claim of the defendant is a narrow one that since it was a police photograph showing front and side views of the defendant its examination by the jury would compel an inference that the defendant had been guilty of prior criminal misconduct and thus deprive his of his right to fair trial. We have recently had occasion to comment on a similar claim. See State v. Woods, 171 Conn. 610, 370 A.2d 1080. As in that case, we find nothing in the present case which would suggest that the trial court abused its discretion in concluding that the probative value of the 'mug shot' outweighed any prejudicial effect that it might have.
The second claim of the defendant requires no discussion. There was more than ample evidence for the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendand was one of two men, one armed with a handgun, who, at gunpoint, held up three employees at a warehouse of the Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company, taking money, a wrist watch, and an automobile owned by one of the victims.
There is no error.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Turcio
...State v. Peary, 176 Conn. 170, 175-76, 405 A.2d 626 (1978); State v. Crowe, 174 Conn. 129, 131, 384 A.2d 340 (1977); State v. Robertson, 172 Conn. 9, 372 A.2d 128 (1976); State v. Woods, 171 Conn. 610, 370 A.2d 1080 The defense raised by the defendant was that he lacked specific intent to c......
-
State v. Harris, 3855
...impact of "mugshots" is greatly diminished when there is a lack of identifiable police markings on the photograph. State v. Robertson, 172 Conn. 9, 10, 372 A.2d 128 (1976); State v. Woods, 171 Conn. 610, 612-13, 370 A.2d 1080 (1976). The introduction of the mugshot into evidence cannot be s......
-
Straughn v. State
...reversed absent a showing of a clear abuse of discretion. E.g., State v. Woods, 171 Conn. 610, 370 A.2d 1080 (1976); State v. Robertson, 172 Conn. 9, 372 A.2d 128 (1976); State v. Davison, 245 N.W.2d 321 (Iowa 1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 955, 97 S.Ct. 1600, 51 L.Ed.2d 805 (1977); Hildebra......
-
State v. Crowe
..."mug shot" is admissible if it is relevant and material and if its probative value outweighs its prejudicial tendency. State v. Robertson, 172 Conn. 9, 10, 372 A.2d 128; State v. Woods, 171 Conn. 610, 612, 370 A.2d 1080. The present photograph was clearly relevant and material to rebut Kulo......