State v. Zagora

• Decision Date: 16 January 1970
• Docket Number: No. MV,MV
• Citation: 270 A.2d 574,6 Conn.Cir.Ct. 261
• Court: Circuit Court of Connecticut. Connecticut Circuit Court, Appellate Division
• Parties: STATE of Connecticut v. Thomas ZAGORA. 12-45619.

Page 574

270 A.2d 574

6 Conn.Cir.Ct. 261

STATE of Connecticut v. Thomas ZAGORA.

No. MV 12-45619.

Circuit Court of Connecticut, Appellate Division.

Argued Dec. 1, 1969.

Decided Jan. 16, 1970.

Harry Hammer, Rockville, for appellant (defendant).

John N. Lombardo, Asst. Pros. Atty., for appellee (state).

DEARINGTON, Judge.

The defendant, having been found guilty of violating § 14-227a of the General Statutes in a trial to the jury, has appealed. He has assigned error in the denial of his motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict in accorance with his motion for a directed verdict, to set the verdict aside on the ground that it was not supported by the evidence, and to set the verdict aside on the ground that it was contrary to law; in the court's failure to correct the finding; in the court's charge; and in certain rulings on evidence.

We first consider the assignment of error directed to the court's refusal to correct the finding. In the beginning, it should be noted that a finding in a jury case is simply a statement of relevant facts claimed to have been proved, and it is designed for the purpose of testing the charge. Practice Book § 996; Maltbie, Conn.App.Proc. § 160. We have examined this assignment of error and are satisfied that the finding furnishes a fair and adequate basis for testing the errors claimed by the defendant to have been made in the charge, and therefore no corrections are warranted.

We now come to the assignment of error directed to the court's ruling on evidence. This assignment of error may be summarily disposed of in all but one instance, for the defendant has failed to comply with the requirements of §§ 1006 and 989(4) of the Practice Book. Our rules provide that an assignment of error relating to rulings on evidence shall refer to an annexed exhibit which shall set forth the question, objection, answer, if any, and exception. The exhibits annexed by the defendant merely set forth in narrative form, without questions, answers, objections, and exception, his version of what he claims to have occurred. The one instance in which the defendant complied with the rules relates to the redirect examination of the defendant by his counsel as follows: 'Now, Mr. Zagora, you say you observed this other party that was involved in the accident, car one. Did he arrive at the police station?' The state objected, claiming irrelevancy, and was sustained. It appears that the other party, Polanski, operator of the first of three cars involved in the accident leading to the defendant's arrest, was also arrested for operating under the influence. The defendant claims that he had a right to offer evidence as to the condition of Polanski. Thereafter, the defendant's attorney addressed the court as follows: 'Is Your Honor's ruling at the present time that the fact a test may have been administered at about the same time has no relevancy in this case?' The court: 'Has no relevancy, and I will use that in my charge instructions insofar as it may pertain to the jury's determination that there may have been a mistake.' The defendant's attorney: 'That is the only purpose I am using it for.' The defendant appeared to be satisfied with the statement by the court, for the colloquy ended as follows: The defendant's attorney: 'As long as your charge will reflect that point that you mentioned here.' The court: 'It will reflect the point. * * *' 'The court has a wide discretion in its rulings on the relevancy of evidence. * * * At times, the evidence offered may be relevant, but its relevance may be so slight and inconsequential that to admit it would distract attention which should be concentrated on other evidence which bears directly on vital points.' State v. Bassett, 151 Conn. 547, 551, 200 A.2d 473, 475. The evidence excluded appears to have had little, if any, probative value on the question whether the defendant violated § 14-227a of the General Statutes, and the court's ruling was not improper.

The defendant made several requests to charge and claims that the court refused so to charge and thereby committed error. 'If a properly composed request to charge is submitted to the court, it would be error for the court to refuse it.' Penna v. Esposito, 154 Conn. 212, 214, 224 A.2d 536, 537. Of course, if the charge is accurate and adequate and in substance included the material portions of the request, although not in the identical language, no error has been committed. Mace v. Conde Nast Publications, Inc.,155 Conn. 680, 687, 237 A.2d 360. Among other requests to charge was the following: 'If you accept the testimony of the expert witness (Dr. Stolman, the state toxicologist) for that state that the percentage of carbon dioxide in the alveolar air may vary and is influenced by a variety of conditions such as food in the stomach, posture, activity, etc., you may also consider the fact that the margin of error would be about 15 percent, which in turn would reduce the alcohol concentration in the blood of this accused to less than fifteen-hundredths of one percent alcohol.' The testimony of Dr. Stolman included no percentage of a margin of error. When asked by the defendant upon what conditions a margin of error would be computed, Dr. Stolman answered: 'If the individual had just finished vomiting and they gave him the test, you can eliminate the analysis completely. If the individual is a diabetic and not under control, that would affect the results. If the individual had just finished drinking and he took the test, you can eliminate the test then and there, because the officer didn't wait ten or fifteen minutes because it would affect the results.' The only other condition which would affect the results, as testified to by the doctor, would be the panting of an individual at the time of a test. There was no evidence that any of those conditions existed here. A request to charge must be directly applicable to the evidence in the case. Roberts v. New York N.H. & H.R. Co., 107 Conn. 681, 687, 142 A. 455. This request was properly refused.

Certain other requests were adequately covered in the charge; for instance, the defendant requested that the jury be charged that the defendant's ability to operate a motor vehicle was dependent on the effect which results from alcohol and not the quantity consumed. In this respect the court charged: 'This statute does not make it a crime for a person to drive his automobile after he has been drinking. Nor has it specified the number of drinks which one might take in order to produce that state which is defined to be under the influence of intoxicating liquor.' The defendant further requested the court to charge in respect to the 'chemical test' to which the defendant had submitted at the state police barracks. While the request is not clear, it would appear to be limited to certain essentials claimed to be required by statute in the collection of the specimen in the field, rather than to the essentials required at the time of the analysis in the state laboratory. There is no requirement that the person collecting the specimen in the field must be certified by the state department of health, nor is it required that the collecting equipment be checked within thirty days before the test by the department of health. Such requirements relate only to the laboratory operator and the device used during the analysis in the state laboratory. State v. Novotasky, 5 Conn. Cir. 326, 328, 251 A.2d 189. The request was not an adequate statement of our law and was properly...