State v. Woods
| Decision Date | 14 September 1976 |
| Citation | 370 A.2d 1080,171 Conn. 610 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Walter R. WOODS. |
Henry C. Campbell, Public Defender, for appellant (defendant).
Robert E. Beach, Jr., Asst. State's Atty., with whom was John F. Bianchi, State's Atty., for appellee (state).
Before HOUSE, C.J., and LOISELLE, BOGDANSKI, LONGO and BARBER, JJ.
The defendant, Walter R. Woods, was charged in an information with the crime of robbery in the first degree in violation of § 53a-134(a)(2) of the General Statutes. The jury returned a verdict of guilty and judgment was rendered accordingly on October 16, 1973. The single issue which the defendant has raised in this appeal from the judgment rendered is whether the court committed reversible error in admitting into evidence a so-called mug shot of the defendant.
The facts appearing in the parties' briefs which are pertinent to this appeal may be summarized as follows: On the evening of May 16, 1972, the residence of Theodore Siskey, located in New Milford, was robbed by two men carrying guns. Present in the home at the time of the robbery were Theodore Siskey, his wife Julia, and their daughter Barbara. For a period of one to two hours, one of the gunmen held the Siskeys at gunpoint while the other ransacked the house, looking for money. The hands of the Siskeys were then tied behind their backs and the robbers left, taking only about $55.
In January of 1973, during his investigation of the robbery, Detective Norbert Lillis of the New Milford police department showed a group of fifteen 'mug shots' to Julia Siskey to see if she could identify the robbers. A 'mug shot' of the defendant was included in this group, and Julia Siskey positively identified that photograph as being a photograph of one of the robbers. Thereafter, Theodore Siskey and Barbara Siskey were shown the same group of photographs and both independently identified the photograph of the defendant. Over the defendant's objection, the group of 'mug shots,' which had been taped to conceal police markings, were admitted into evidence, and from that group the three victims testified that they had picked out the picture of the defendant as being a picture of one of the robbers.
The defendant claims that the court erred in admitting the 'mug shot' of him into evidence because it informed the jury that he had a prior criminal record, despite the fact that he neither testified at trial nor put his character in issue.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Turcio
...(1978); State v. Crowe, 174 Conn. 129, 131, 384 A.2d 340 (1977); State v. Robertson, 172 Conn. 9, 372 A.2d 128 (1976); State v. Woods, 171 Conn. 610, 370 A.2d 1080 (1976). The defense raised by the defendant was that he lacked specific intent to commit the crimes charged due to intoxication......
-
State v. Harris, 3855
...lack of identifiable police markings on the photograph. State v. Robertson, 172 Conn. 9, 10, 372 A.2d 128 (1976); State v. Woods, 171 Conn. 610, 612-13, 370 A.2d 1080 (1976). The introduction of the mugshot into evidence cannot be said to have violated notions of fundamental fairness. The m......
-
State v. Steele
...States v. Johnson, 623 F.2d 339 (4th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 957, 101 S.Ct. 366, 66 L.Ed.2d 222 (1980); Connecticut v. Woods, 171 Conn. 610, 370 A.2d 1080 (1976); Illinois v. Jones, 34 Ill.App.3d 103, 339 N.E.2d 485 (1975), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 953, 96 S.Ct. 3179, 49 L.Ed.2d 119......
-
State v. Peary
...two dates alleged and his testimony that he had seen the defendant on two prior occasions. Cf. State v. Crowe, supra; State v. Woods, 171 Conn. 610, 613, 370 A.2d 1080. Concealment of any police markings indicating a conviction, however, mitigated the prejudicial effect of the photograph. S......