State v. Santuro
| Decision Date | 07 November 1941 |
| Citation | 22 A.2d 793,128 Conn. 297 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. SANTURO. |
Rehearing Denied Dec. 5, 1941.
Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; Carl Foster, Judge.
Adolph J. Santoro was found guilty on an information charging him with the crime of attempt to procure a miscarriage, and he appeals.
No error.
Argued before MALTBIE, C. J., and AVERY, BROWN, JENNINGS, and ELLS, JJ.
Edward Mascolo, of Waterbury, for appellant.
Lorin W. Willis, State's Atty., and Otto J. Saur, Asst. State's Atty., both of Bridgeport, for appellee.
In this case the defendant was charged with committing the crime of attempt to procure a miscarriage in violation of General Statutes, § 6056. The court found the defendant guilty and he has appealed. The only error claimed is that upon all the evidence the court was not warranted in finding the defendant guilty as charged beyond a reasonable doubt.
Upon the evidence the court could properly have found these material facts. On June 3, 1940, the complainant Josephine Dellamonica, a married woman, was pregnant and was so advised by Dr. Booth, whom she consulted. On June 21st she consulted the defendant, who was a licensed natureopath, concerning her condition, and asked him if she was pregnant. She gave a history of having missed her last period and said she suspected she was pregnant. The defendant thereupon made a physical examination. Subsequently she made six other visits to his office, on at least two of which her husband was with her. The first time he was present the defendant suggested that the husband purchase a catheter which he did, showed it to the defendant who said it was all right, and gave it to the wife. Following her next visit to the defendant the complainant asked her husband to purchase another catheter which he did. On at least one of her visits the defendant inserted in her body one of these catheters cutting off part of it, and told her to go home and to go to bed. As a result of the defendant's treatments a miscarriage was produced.
The defendant, testifying in his own behalf, related in detail what his examination of the complainant disclosed and the history which she gave including complaint of pain and spasm, and stated that upon the information so obtained his diagnosis was that she was not pregnant, but was suffering from metritis and stenosis of the womb with a consequent uterine congestion which had interrupted her regular periods. He testified that he inserted the catheter in the cervix to dilate it to relieve the pain and with no intention of performing an abortion. The determinative question, therefore, is resolved to whether or not the court was warranted upon all the evidence in finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had the guilty intent essential to conviction of the offense charged.
In urging that it was not, the defendant invokes the principle that in determining whether the evidence establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. McGinnis
...A.2d 612; State v. Smith, 138 Conn. 196, 200, 201, 82 A.2d 816; State v. McDonough, 129 Conn. 483, 485, 29 A.2d 582; State v. Santoro, 128 Conn. 297, 299, 22 A.2d 793; State v. Guilfoyle, 109 Conn. 124, 139, 145 A. A conviction of breaking and entering would not be precluded because nobody ......
-
State v. Smith
...is a far different thing from a reasonable hypothesis.' State v. McDonough, 129 Conn. 483, 485, 29 A.2d 582, 583; State v. Santoro, 128 Conn. 297, 299, 22 A.2d 793; State v. Guilfoyle, 109 Conn. 124, 139, 145 A. 761; State v. Block, 87 Conn. 573, 577, 89 A. 167.' State v. Smith, 138 Conn. 1......
-
State v. Smith
...is a far different thing from a reasonable hypothesis.' State v. McDonough, 129 Conn. 483, 485, 29 A.2d 582, 583; State v. Santoro, 128 Conn. 297, 299, 22 A.2d 793; State v. Guilfoyle, 109 Conn. 124, 139, 145 A. 761; State v. Block, 87 Conn. 573, 577, 89 A. 167, 49 L.R.A.,N.S., In the prese......
-
State v. Hall
...is a far different thing from a reasonable hypothesis.' State v. McDonough, 129 Conn. 483, 485, 29 A.2d 582, 583; State v. Santoro, 128 Conn. 297, 299, 22 A.2d 793; State v. Guilfoyle,109 Conn. 124, 139, 145 A. 761; State v. Block, 87 Conn. 573, 577, 89 A. 167.' State v. Smith, 138 Conn. 19......
-
Connecticut: Post Casey and White
...conflicting evidence on charge in information and on accused's defense of alibi held within the province of the jury); State v. Santoro, 128 Conn. 297, 22 A.2d 793 (1941) (Evidence of guilty intent sufficient to sustain conviction Of naturopath for attempt to procure illegal miscarriage); S......