State v. Tucker
| Decision Date | 08 May 1959 |
| Citation | 146 Conn. 410,151 A.2d 876 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. John H. TUCKER. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
Richard L. Jacobs, New Haven, with whom, on the brief, was Israel J. Jacobs, New Haven, for appellant (defendant).
Abraham S. Ullman, State's Atty., New Haven, with whom, on the brief, was Arthur T. Gorman, Asst. State's Atty., New Haven, for appellee (state).
Before BALDWIN, KING, MURPHY and MELLITZ, JJ., and SHEA, Superior court judge.
The defendant was found guilty after a jury trial upon a charge of violating the Uniform State Narcotic Drug Act. Rev.1958, § 19-246. He has appealed, claiming error in the denial of his motion to set aside the verdict, in the finding, in the charge to the jury, in the refusal to charge as requested, in the admission of evidence and in the denial of his motion to have the jury polled when the verdict was returned.
The case was submitted to the jury upon the evidence introduced by the state. The defendant did not testify and offered no evidence in his own behalf. From the evidence, the jury could have found that on the afternoon of November 29, 1957, two detectives in the New Haven police department were driving northerly on a little traveled road in an isolated area on the outskirts of New Haven. As they approached an automobile parked on the opposite side of the road and headed south, the defendant and one Williams, who were standing on the far side of the automobile, ducked out of sight. The hood of the car was raised. As the officers passed, the defendant stood up and threw a shiny object into the marshy area to his right. Search of this area produced a hypodermic needle in the base of which a rolled-up strip of United States currency was fitted; a black metal bottle cap with a crystalline substance adhering to the inside; and a white metal bottle cap, sides pinched together, containing a small quantity of liquid and a small piece of cotton saturated with liquid. Each cap had adhesive paper affixed to the base, and the bottom of each was charred. On the floor in the rear of the car, the officers found a matchbox containing matches and a small piece of sponge. Affixed to the box by a thumbtack was a charred wooden stirrer. A salt shaker containing salt and a folded piece of wax paper containing a powder were in the glove compartment of the car. Williams owned the car; he told the officers that he had had motor trouble and could not start it. The car started readily when the officers tested it. Toxicological examination disclosed that the crystalline substance in the black cap was morphine and quinine, that the liquid in the other cap and the saturated cotton contained morphine, and that the powder in the wax paper was quinine. Narcotics addicts mix quinine with morphine to give it bulk, and heat the mixture with water in a bottle cap to liquefy it. The bottle cap or 'pot' is held over an open flame by a 'Pot holder.' The stirrer attached to the matchbox serves the latter purpose. Lighted matches provide heat to the 'pot' and cause charring of it and the 'holder.' A piece of cotton or sponge is used as a strainer in drawing the liquefied mixture into the hypodermic needle for injection into the addict, and the strip of currency paper makes a snug non-absorbent fitting between the needle of an eyedropper syringe.
Great weight must be given the action of the trial court upon a motion to set a verdict aside, and all reasonable presumptions resolved in support of the ruling. Maltbie, Conn.App.Proc. § 190. The state made out a prima facie case against the defendant, although it was based on circumstantial evidence, including the inferences which the jury could draw from the actions of the defendant and his companion at the scene. This in turn gave rise to the further inference which could be drawn from the defendant's failure to testify in explanation. State v. Hayes, 127 Conn. 543, 591, 18 A.2d 895; State v. Nelson, 139 Conn. 124, 127, 90 A.2d 157. As the verdict must be tested by the evidence, we cannot say as a matter of law that the jury could not have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brooks v. Gladden
...to Poll of Jury, 49 A.L.R.2d 619 (1956). In some states it is held that the defendant has no right to poll the jury. State v. Tucker, 1959, 146 Conn. 410, 151 A.2d 876; Fellows' Case, 1828, 5 Me. 333; Commonwealth v. Goldenberg, 1959, 338 Mass. 377, 155 N.E.2d 187, 70 A.L.R.2d 814, certiora......
-
State v. Pare
...v. Marshall, 166 Conn. 593, 598, 353 A.2d 756 (1974); State v. Shelton, 160 Conn. 360, 363-65, 278 A.2d 782 (1971); State v. Tucker, 146 Conn. 410, 415, 151 A.2d 876 (1959). In 1995, the judges of the Superior Court amended § 869 by substituting the term "shall" for the term "may." That cha......
-
State v. Tucker
...v. Marshall, 166 Conn. 593, 598, 353 A.2d 756 (1974); State v. Shelton, 160 Conn. 360, 363-65, 278 A.2d 782 (1971); State v. Tucker, 146 Conn. 410, 415, 115 A.2d 876 (1959); State v. Hoyt, 47 Conn. 518, 533-34 The defendant's second argument of abuse of discretion is equally unavailing. The......
-
State v. Gullette
...our state, that a defendant in a criminal case is not entitled to an individual poll of the jury as a matter of right. State v. Tucker, 146 Conn. 410, 415, 151 A.2d 876; State v. DiPietro, 120 Conn. 537, 540, 181 A. 716; State v. Hoyt, 47 Conn. 518, 533. Under our practice, the presiding ju......