State v. Schroff
Citation | 503 A.2d 167,198 Conn. 405 |
Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
Decision Date | 21 January 1986 |
Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. William B. SCHROFF III. |
Bruce A. Sturman, Public Defender, for appellant (defendant).
Guy W. Wolf, III, Asst. State's Atty., with whom, on the brief, was Arnold Markle, State's Atty., for appellee (state).
Before PETERS, C.J., and SHEA, DANNEHY, SANTANIELLO and KLINE, JJ.
After a jury trial, the defendant, William B. Schroff III, was convicted of the crimes of kidnapping in the first degree, in violation of General Statutes 53a-92(a)(2)(A), sexual assault in the first degree, in violation of General Statutes § 53a-70(a), assault in the second degree, in violation of General Statutes § 53a-60(a)(2), and of six counts of theft of a firearm, in violation of General Statutes § 53a-212(a). The defendant was given a total effective sentence of fifty years on all counts.
From this judgment the defendant has appealed claiming that the court erred (1) by abusing its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to sever the six counts of theft of a firearm from the sexual assault, kidnapping and assault charges, and (2) in allowing the state's attorney to cross-examine the defendant about the firearms, when this subject was allegedly outside the scope of direct examination.
The jury could reasonably have found the following facts: On August 8, 1982, between 1:30 and 2 a.m., the victim left her home to walk to her friend's home approximately two miles away. The victim was observed proceeding easterly on the Boston Post Road by Kenneth Smith of the Milford police department. The officer, concerned for the young woman's safety, drove down the road to an area where he could make a U-turn. Meanwhile, the operator, later identified as the defendant, of a white van proceeding easterly stopped to ask the victim if she wanted a ride, which she declined. The van proceeded over the crest of a hill and disappeared. As the victim continued to walk along the roadside, the defendant jumped out of the bushes, hit the victim on the left side of her head and pulled her over a guardrail into the bushes. She tried to escape but was subdued, and a knife was produced. The victim was told to remain silent as there were police in the area.
Meanwhile, Smith discovered the van, examined it, and found no one inside. A radio check revealed that the van was registered to the defendant. After his investigation, he radioed the van's position to a brother officer at 2:15 a.m., but when he returned at 3:15 a.m., the van was gone.
During this time lapse, the defendant and the victim made their way to the white van, which the victim recognized as the one which had stopped earlier. The victim had ample opportunity to observe her assailant and the interior of the van while he transported her some distance away from where the van had been parked. The defendant eventually parked and forced the victim to drink some wine and ingest some pills. At this point the defendant made her undress and sexually assaulted her. Afterwards, he put thumbcuffs on the victim's and his forefinger and lay down to sleep. Finding the position uncomfortable, he removed the thumbcuffs and went to sleep. After waiting a period of time, the victim was able to dress herself and escape, taking the keys to the vehicle with her. The incident was ultimately reported to the police and the defendant was arrested in the van at the place where the victim had escaped.
The van was searched pursuant to a warrant. Among the many items found were six .22 calibre rifles that had been taken from a Boy Scout camp in New Hartford in August of 1982.
The defendant made a number of motions prior to trial. The only one which has become an issue in this appeal is his motion to sever the six gun charges from the other charges. The defendant's position was that he wanted to testify as to the sexual assault and kidnapping charges but that he did not want to take the stand relative to the firearms charges. The court denied the motion on two different occasions.
State v. Rodgers, 198 Conn. 53, 63, 502 A.2d 360 (1985).
Economy and expedition of judicial administration were of paramount importance in the instant case. The arrest on the firearms charges occurred as a direct result of the investigation of the other charges. If a second trial were to be had on the firearms charges alone, much of the evidence relative to the first three counts might have to be introduced to explain the officer's basis for searching the vehicle and discovering the firearms. Economy and expedition of judicial resources are not achieved when the same facts must be proved to two different juries.
We have recently approved of the analysis employed by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in Baker v. United States, 401 F.2d 958, 977 (D.C.Cir.1968), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 965, 91 S.Ct. 367, 27 L.Ed.2d 384 (1970). Baker held that Baker v. United States, supra; see also Blunt v. United States, 404 F.2d 1283, 1289 (D.C.Cir.1968); State v. Rodgers, supra, 198 Conn. 65, 502 A.2d 360; State v. King, supra.
In the instant matter, although the defendant did declare that he wanted to testify with respect to the first three counts but not on the firearms counts, he at no time disclosed the substance of his expected testimony, and he demonstrated no reason for his not wanting to testify on the other counts. In effect, this deprived the court of the ability to make a decision that any claim of prejudice was genuine.
The defendant's complete failure to substantiate his claim of prejudice falls far short of the "convincing showing" required by our cases. State v. Rodgers, supra; State v. King, supra. The defendant has failed to sustain his heavy burden of showing that the denial resulted in a substantial injustice or prejudice. We cannot find an abuse of discretion in the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion to sever.
The other issue raised by the defendant is whether the court was correct in allowing cross-examination concerning the rifles found in the defendant's van.
The defense counsel asked the defendant the following question on direct examination: This question was asked after the state had presented its case in chief. There had been introduced as a state's exhibit a black metal box containing the six disassembled .22 calibre rifles. These had been identified as stolen from a Boy Scout camp. In answer to his counsel's question, the defendant replied: "Specific articles that I had in the van at the time." Counsel then asked: "Why did you have these articles in the van?" The defendant replied:
The defense counsel then went on to inquire about the thumbcuffs. Counsel made no further reference to the rifles, since, as he had indicated in his motion to sever, his client did not want to testify about the rifles.
On cross-examination, the state's attorney inquired about the rifles found in the van. The defense counsel objected on the ground that the question was beyond the scope of the direct examination. Initially, the trial court sustained the objection, then reversed itself and allowed the inquiry about the rifles.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Thames River Recycling, Inc. v. Gallo
...a bad motive or wrong purpose but merely means that the ruling appears to have been made on untenable grounds. State v. Schroff, 198 Conn. 405, 413, 503 A.2d 167 (1986). In determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion, much depends upon the circumstances of each case. Id." (Int......
-
State v. Pollitt
...Cir.1976), cert. denied sub nom. Martin v. United States, 430 U.S. 956, 97 S.Ct. 1602, 51 L.Ed.2d 806 (1977); State v. Schroff, 198 Conn. 405, 408-409, 503 A.2d 167 (1986); State v. Rodgers, 198 Conn. 53, 63, 502 A.2d 360 Substantial prejudice does not necessarily result from a denial of se......
-
State v. Greene, 13373
...Statutes § 54-57 6 and Practice Book § 829, 7 is to foster economy and expedition of judicial administration. State v. Schroff, 198 Conn. 405, 409, 503 A.2d 167 (1986); see State v. King, 187 Conn. 292, 296-98, 301, 445 A.2d 901 (1982). 8 Joinder of offenses is, however, not permissible if ......
-
State v. Jones
...resulted in substantial prejudice falls to the defendant. State v. Smith, 201 Conn. 659, 669, 519 A.2d 26 (1986); State v. Schroff, 198 Conn. 405, 408, 503 A.2d 167 (1986); State v. Rodgers, 198 Conn. 53, 63, 502 A.2d 360 (1985); State v. Wiggins, 7 Conn.App. 95, 101, 507 A.2d 518 (1986). S......