State v. Rocco
| Decision Date | 02 March 1929 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. ROCCO ET AL. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; John Richards Booth Judge.
John Rocco and others were convicted of possessing and transporting dynamite with intention of using it for injury of property and for possessing burglars' tools and for carrying firearms, and three of the accused appeal. No error.
Clifford B. Wilson, of Bridgeport, for appellants.
Lorin W. Willis, Asst. State's Atty., and William H. Comley State's Atty., both of Bridgeport, for the State.
Argued before WHEELER, C.J., and HAINES, HINMAN, BANKS, and JOHN RUFUS BOOTH, JJ.
The accused at the opening of the trial, and before the jury had been polled, made a motion for a change of venue based upon the claimed prejudicial effect of certain articles published in two Bridgeport newpapers on the preceding day. The character of the newspaper articles was not such as to be necessarily prejudicial to the accused, and no evidence was offered that such was their effect. The power to grant a change of venue is one to be exercised with caution and rests in the court's sound discretion, which is final unless it clearly appears that the discretion has been abused. State v. Cianflone, 98 Conn. 454, 461, 120 A. 347; State v. Luria, 100 Conn. 207, 209, 123 A. 378; State v. Chapman, 103 Conn. 453, 470, 130 A. 899. Upon this record it does not appear that the accused could not have a fair and impartial trial in Fairfield county, and the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a change of venue.
Error is also predicated upon the overruling of the accused's challenge to the array. During the polling of the jury, it appeared that the newspaper articles, which had been the basis of the motion for a change of venue, had been read by members of the panel to other members of the panel in the jury room, and counsel for the accused thereupon challenged the array of jurors. The court overruled the challenge, and the trial proceeded before members of the jury who had been present in the jury room when the newspaper articles had been read aloud, but none of the jurors accepted had either read the articles or heard them read while in the jury room. A challenge to the array is a challenge to the whole panel, and will only be allowed upon some ground affecting the validity of the whole panel, and growing out of the proceedings in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Cobbs
...for a cause that affects all the jurors alike.' State v. Hogan, 67 Conn. 581, 583, 35 A. 508, 509, State v. Smith, supra; State v. Rocco, 109 Conn. 571, 572, 145 A. 47; State v. Luria, 100 Conn. 207, 209, 123 A.2d 378; 47 Am.Jur.2d, Jury, § 224; 5 Wharton, Criminal Law and Procedure § 1961.......
-
State v. Marra
...and impartial trial. State v. Rogers, supra, [143 Conn.] 172 ; State v. Leopold, 110 Conn. 55, 58, 147 A. 118 [1929]; State v. Rocco, 109 Conn. 571, 572, 145 A. 47 [1929]; State v. Chapman, supra." State v. Hart, 169 Conn. 428, 432-33, 363 A.2d 80 (1975). Although rulings on such motions ar......
-
State v. Hart
...and impartial trial. State v. Rogers, supra, 143 Conn. 172, 120 A.2d 409; State v. Leopold, 110 Conn. 55, 58, 147 A. 118; State v. Rocco, 109 Conn. 571, 572, 145 A. 47; State v. Chapman, Furthermore, the court exercises its discretion in the decision as to whether a change of venue should b......
-
State v. Kemp
...erroneous only when there has been a clear abuse of that discretion. State v. Luria, 100 Conn. 207, 209, 123 A. 378; State v. Rocco, 109 Conn. 571, 572, 145 A. 47; State v. Chapman, 103 Conn. 453, 470, 130 A. 905. In the case last cited where a claim substantially similar to the one now mad......