State v. Wilkas
| Decision Date | 06 January 1967 |
| Citation | 154 Conn. 407,225 A.2d 821 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Daniel WILKAS. |
Fred B. Rosnick, Waterbury, with whom, on the brief, was Alan H. Hertzmark, Southington, for appellant (defendant).
Francis M. McDonald, Deputy Chief Pros. Atty., with whom, on the brief, was Arnold Markle, Chief Pros. Atty., for appellee (state).
Before KING, C.J., and ALCORN, HOUSE, THIM and RYAN, JJ.
The defendant was convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court of selling liquor to a minor in violation of § 30-86 of the General Statutes. The defendant did not testify, and the court charged the jury, as was then permissible, as to the circumstances which would permit an inference to be drawn from the failure of an accused person to testify. State v. Nelson, 139 Conn. 124, 127, 90 A.2d 157. No exception was taken to the charge. The defendant appealed to the Appellate Division of the Circuit Court on other grounds. During the pendency of that appeal, the United States Supreme Court in Griffin v. State of California, 380 U.S. 609, 85 S.Ct. 1229, 14 L.Ed.2d 106, decided that the fifth amendment to the constitution of the United States, made applicable to the states by the fourteenth amendment, forbids instruction by the court that the accused's silence may be considered as evidence of guilt. In reliance on the Griffin decision, the defendant moved to rectify his appeal to include an attack on the charge, but the Appellate Division denied the motion on procedural grounds and found no error in the trial.
From that decision, the defendant sought certification of an appeal to this court on two grounds: (1) the violation of his constitutional rights under the Griffin rule and (2) the failure of the state to prove the alcoholic content of the liquor allegedly sold to the minor. We granted certification on the second ground but declined to consider the first ground, the question not having been raised or decided in the trial court and the then-established rule of the United States Supreme Court appearing to be that, in a case such as this, state procedural requirements for raising a federal constitutional question would be respected. Johnson v. State of New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719, 735, 86 S.Ct. 1772, 16 L.Ed.2d 882; Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 659, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081. We have applied the Griffin rule on this basis and ordered a new trial where an exception to a charge regarding the inference to be drawn from the accused's failure to testify had been overruled by the trial court. State v. Annunziato, 154 Conn. 41, 43, 221 A.2d 57.
During the pendency of this appeal, however, the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Brown
...error in the cases of State v. Annunziato, 154 Conn. 41, 221 A.2d 57, State v. Vars, 154 Conn. 255, 224 A.2d 744, and State v. Wilkas, 154 Conn. 407, 225 A.2d 821. In all of these cases the usual pre-Griffin charge had been given and in each instance an appeal was pending at the time the Gr......
-
Reed v. Reincke
...we have accorded partial retrospective application to changes in the law announced by the United States Supreme Court. State v. Wilkas, 154 Conn. 407, 225 A.2d 821; State v. Vars, 154 Conn. 255, 224 A.2d 744; State v. Annunziato, 154 Conn. 41, 221 A.2d 57; State v. Hanna, 150 Conn. 457, 191......
-
Brown v. Adams
...Supreme Court had complied with O'Connor to hold that the Griffin rule applied to cases pending on "direct review," State v. Wilkas, 154 Conn. 407, 225 A.2d 821 (1967); State v. Vars, 154 Conn. 255, 224 A.2d 744 (1966); State v. Annunziato, 154 Conn. 41, 221 A.2d 57 (1966). Cf. United State......
-
Walters v. Warden of Conn. State Prison
...in this court on appeal. State v. Walters, supra; see O'Connor v. Ohio, 385 U.S. 92, 87 S.Ct. 252, 17 L.Ed.2d 189; State v. Wilkas, 154 Conn. 407, 409, 225 A.2d 821; State v. Vars, 154 Conn. 255, 272, 224 A.2d We have very recently had occasion to decide under what circumstances federal con......