State v. Seiden

• Decision Date: 22 August 1969
• Docket Number: No. CR,CR
• Citation: 6 Conn.Cir.Ct. 42,263 A.2d 277
• Court: Circuit Court of Connecticut. Connecticut Circuit Court, Appellate Division
• Parties: STATE of Connecticut v. Richard SEIDEN. 5-13588.

Page 277

263 A.2d 277

6 Conn.Cir.Ct. 42

STATE of Connecticut v. Richard SEIDEN.

No. CR 5-13588.

Circuit Court of Connecticut, Appellate Division.

Argued June 2, 1969.

Decided Aug. 22, 1969.

John J. Coughlin, Milford, for appellant (defendant).

Joseph H. Sylvester, Asst. Pros. Atty., for appellee (state).

KOSICKI, Judge.

There was substantial, although conflicting evidence, on which the court could find the following facts. On September 22, 1968, Officer Daziel of the Milford police department was checking buildings at two o'clock in the morning, in the performance of his duties. He heard loud screams, yelling, and profanity emanating from a residence a block away and immediately drove to the place. On his way there, he radioed police headquarters for assistance and, in response, Officer Stygles arrived there to help him. The residence in question consisted of two separate apartments, one on the left and one on the right as a person approached the property. Officer Daziel observed that the noises described were coming from the apartment to the left, which was opposite to the defendant's, with the front entries opening on a screened porch common to both apartments. As Officer Daziel got out of his motor vehicle and proceeded up the porch steps, he was confronted by some person and informed that there would be no further disturbance in the apartment to the left, occupied by Kathleen Danz. At the same time, the door of the apartment of the defendant was opened by him in response to a knock from one Baranowski, who was seeking admittance, and the defendant in his protest uttered a four-letter profane word. He did, however, let his friend in and closed the door. Thereupon, Officer Daziel, without knocking or making any indication by word or otherwise that he was a police officer and was seeking entry for the purpose of making an arrest, opened the door and entered the apartment. Thereupon, a scuffle ensued between the defendant, aided by Baranowski, and Officer Daziel, during which the defendant maintained that he had violated no law and if there had been any disturbance it occurred in the apartment opposite his. The officer, after subduing the defendant, placed him under arrest and handcuffed him. During the scuffle and while being placed in the cruiser by Officers Daziel and Stygles, the defendant struggled and resisted. He used profane language and hurled obscenities at Officer Daziel. He exhibited a high degree of indignation and anger at being arrested and forcibly taken to the Milford police station. Upon entering the police station, while still handcuffed, and in the presence of Sergeant Pankowitz, the desk sergeant, and Officers Daziel, Stygles and Coakley, the defendant acted like a 'wild man,' hurling epithets, vile invectives, profanities and obscenities at the officers. He threatened Officer Daziel with the loss of his job and persisted in demanding the reason for his arrest.

Upon trial, the defendant was found not guilty on the two counts of breach of the peace and resisting arrest at 18 Merwin Avenue. He was found guilty of breach of the peace committed at the police station. The court concluded that this offense was unrelated to the other two charges and that the defendant had committed a separate offense by reason of his actions, conduct and language at the police headquarters in Milford. From the judgment on the third count the defendant has appealed. In his assignment of errors, he has included numerous claims based upon the court's failure to correct the finding, except in a few particulars, in accordance with his motion to correct. He also assigned error in the ultimate conclusion of the court that upon all the evidence the defendant was guilty of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. This last assignment makes unnecessary a detailed consideration of the claims of error directed against the finding. State v. Serkau, 128 Conn. 153, 154, 20 A.2d 725. Such a general assignment is determined by an examination of the evidence and not by a finding of facts. Practice Book § 995; State v. Salvaggio, 152 Conn. 716, 717, 210 A.2d 175. 'We have given consideration to the finding, however, for the purpose of showing the specific facts found by the court upon conflicting evidence. State v. Dziob, 133 Conn. 167, 168, 48 A.2d 377.' State v. Foord, 142 Conn. 285, 287, 113 A.2d 591, 592.

We have examined the evidence and are of the opinion that there is no substantial dispute as to the facts found by the court, nor would any correction of the finding be of any assistance to the decision we have arrived at, as a matter of law, on the basis of the facts found.

The court correctly found the defendant not guilty of the first two charges. '(A)n accused person may resist an unlawful arrest and is not bound to submit to an illegal arrest. State v. Engle, 115 Conn. 638, 648, 162 A. 922; State v. Scheele, 57 Conn. 307, 320, 18 A. 256; 5 Am.Jur.2d, 778 Arrest, § 94.' State v. Amara, 152 Conn. 296, 299, 206 A.2d 438, 440.

The facts in the present case, as they pertain to the situation preceding the unlawful entry and illegal arrest, approximated those in State v. Elliott, 153 Conn. 147, 215 A.2d 108. In that case, police officers, acting upon a complaint, approached the defendant's house for the purpose of investigating a disturbance. While doing so they could hear swearing, screaming, loud profane words and the loud noise of a jukebox coming from...