State v. Zimnaruk

• Decision Date: 06 June 1941
• Citation: 20 A.2d 613
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. ZIMNARUK. SAME v. CHUCHELOW.

20 A.2d 613

STATE

v. ZIMNARUK.

SAME

v. CHUCHELOW.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

June 6, 1941.

Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Alfred C. Baldwin, Judge.

Michael Zimnaruk and Peter Chuchelow were tried together by the court on informations charging them with the crime of indecent assault, and from judgments of guilty, they appeal.

No error.

Argued before MALTBIE, C. J., and AVERY, BROWN, JENNINGS, and ELLS, JJ.

Francis P. Guilfoile, of Waterbury, for appellant.

Michael V. Blansfield and Harry M. Albert, both of Waterbury, for appellant.

Walter W. Smyth, Asst. State's Atty., of Waterbury (William B. Fitzgerald, State's Atty., of Waterbury, on the brief), for appellee.

BROWN, Justice.

In these cases, which were tried together, each defendant was charged with and convicted of committing the crime of indecent assault in violation of General Statutes, § 6052. The court found that shortly after 1 a. m. on August 31, 1940, Zimnaruk who was driving Chuchelow's car, brought it to a stop in an isolated spot at the side of a road in Wolcott. He thereupon made improper advances to Josephine Guarino, the twenty-two year old complainant who was sitting beside him, and attempted without success to force her to have sexual intercourse with him. He then twice compelled her by force to engage in an act of sexual perversion upon him. During her struggles to resist, eleven buttons were torn from her dress, and she sustained a sprain of the left knee and bruises upon her lips and the inside of her cheek. Chuchelow, who was alone in the back seat of the car, made no effort to assist the complainant, notwithstanding her requests to him to do so. After Zimnaruk had assaulted her, Chuchelow got into the front seat and although the complainant resisted, forced her to engage in a similar act of sexual perversion upon him. The court concluded that the state had established beyond a reasonable doubt that each of the defendants was guilty as charged. Both defendants assign this as error. Other assignments attacking the finding have been abandoned, since the evidence is not made a part of the record. The above facts, without resort to other supporting circumstances contained in the finding which it is unnecessary to recite, are sufficient to sustain the court's conclusion.

The defendants contend that the corroboration of the complainant's testimony essential to convict in cases of this kind is lacking, and that therefore the court was not warranted in its conclusion that they were guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This court has held that corroboration by any other witness as to the fact of the carnal knowledge by the accused of a female child under the age of ten years, is unnecessary to conviction even upon that charge. State v. Lattin, 29 Conn. 389. This is in accord with the great weight of authority in such cases and in rape cases as well. See 7 Wigmore, Evidence, 3d Ed., § 2061; 52 C.J. 1099; State v. Wassing, 141 Minn. 106, 169 N.W. 485; Commonwealth v. Bemis, 242 Mass. 582, 586, 136 N.E. 597. While in view of the ease of accusation and difficulty of disproof in cases of this kind, in the absence of corroboration the court should adopt a cautious approach and weigh the credibility of the complainant with care, particularly if there are improbabilities suggested by her story or there is substantial controverting evidence, it is not the law that corroboration is essential to proof of guilt. The court did not err in concluding that the state had established the guilt of the defendants beyond a reasonable doubt.

The complainant...