State v. Stevens

• Decision Date: 08 May 1981
• Docket Number: No. 940,940
• Citation: 37 Conn.Supp. 661,433 A.2d 1022
• Parties: STATE of Connecticut v. Randall STEVENS.
• Court: Connecticut Superior Court

Page 1022

433 A.2d 1022

37 Conn.Supp. 661

STATE of Connecticut v. Randall STEVENS.

No. 940.

Superior Court of Connecticut, Appellate Session.

Argued Feb. 9, 1981.

Decided May 8, 1981.

Mark H. Swerdloff, Hartford, for appellant (defendant).

John F. Cronan, Deputy Asst. State's Atty., for appellee State.

DALY, Judge.

The defendant was convicted by a jury of reckless driving in violation of General Statutes § 14-222 and reckless endangerment in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-64. He has appealed from the denial of his motion to set aside the verdict and for judgment of acquittal.

The defendant claims that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's conclusion that he acted recklessly, as defined by the statutes involved. The jury could reasonably have found the following facts: The victim, Christine Chellstorp, a seventeen-year-old female, left her residence in Wethersfield at approximately 12:20 p.m. on the day of the incident. She was driving to her place of employment, the Dress Barn, which is a retail clothing store in Rocky Hill. Her father noticed a purple Pinto following her and alerted the Wethersfield police department. Christine Chellstorp became aware of the purple Pinto, which was driven by the defendant, and took a circuitous route along back roads in order to lose him. The defendant persisted in tailing her, going through several stop signs in order to keep up with her, and at times following at only a half car length behind her. Finally, Chellstorp entered the Great Meadow Plaza, where the Dress Barn is located. She parked her car in a space opposite the Dress Barn. As she left her car, Chellstorp noticed the Pinto heading toward her. The defendant sped toward her and blew his horn, passing about four feet from her. Chellstorp testified that she felt a gust of wind as the Pinto passed. A short time later, the defendant was arrested in a parking lot across the street. Although he acknowledged that he had driven through the Great Meadow Plaza in order to see if a certain store was open, he denied the rest of Chellstorp's allegations. The assistant manager of the Dress Barn testified that she saw a purple car speed by the store as Chellstorp was crossing the parking lot.

Although the defendant has claimed several errors in his preliminary statement of issues, he has raised only one in his brief. Those issues not briefed on appeal will be considered abandoned. Healy v. White, 173 Conn. 438, 441, 378 A.2d 540 (1977). The defendant claims that the trial court erred in denying his motion to set aside the verdict and for judgment of acquittal He argues that the evidence is insufficient to establish recklessness as defined either under the penal code or the motor vehicle laws.

General Statutes § 14-222 prohibits reckless driving and provides that "(t)he operation of a motor vehicle upon any ... parking area for ten cars or more at such a rate of speed as to endanger the life of any person other than the operator of such motor vehicle ... shall constitute a violation of the provisions of this section." The reckless indifference to the safety of others supplies the criminal intent necessary for conviction. State v. Camera, 132 Conn. 247, 251, 43 A.2d 664 (1945); State v. Egidio, 24 Conn.Sup. 108, 111, 1 Conn.Cir.Ct. 435, 187 A.2d 149 (1962); State v. Mahalik, 22 Conn.Sup. 400, 403, 1 Conn.Cir.Ct. 62, 173 A.2d 897 (1961). While speed alone is insufficient to warrant conviction, it may be taken into...