From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Anonymous

Supreme Court of Connecticut
Jan 29, 1980
179 Conn. 516 (Conn. 1980)

Summary

In State v. Anonymous, 179 Conn. 56 (1980), for example, the Connecticut Supreme Court relied on Vuitch in holding that the exception in the statute, which prohibited the carrying and sale of a dangerous weapon, was part of the enacting clause, and thus part of the prosecution's case-in-chief.

Summary of this case from United States v. Carey

Opinion

Convicted as a youthful offender of the crime of carrying a dangerous weapon without a permit, the defendant appealed to the Appellate Session of the Superior Court. He claimed that the Court of Common Pleas should have placed on the state the burden of proving that he did not have a permit for the weapon he was alleged to have carried. On the granting of certification by this court from the judgment of the Appellate Session affirming that conviction, held that since the absence of a permit was an essential element of the crime charged, and since the state failed to sustain its burden of proving that element, the case was remanded with direction to render judgment of not guilty and to discharge the defendant.

Argued November 13, 1979

Decision released January 29, 1980

Information charging the defendant with being a youthful offender by reason of carrying a dangerous weapon without a permit, brought to the Court of Common Pleas and tried to the court, Ramsey, J.; judgment of guilty, and appeal by the defendant to the Appellate Session of the Superior Court, A. Healey, Parskey, and D. Shea, Js., which affirmed the judgment, from which the defendant, on the granting of certification, appealed to this court. Error; judgment directed.

Gerard A. Smyth, assistant public defender, for the appellant (defendant).

Irving L. Aronson, deputy assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, was Mary-Anne Ziewacz, law student intern, for the appellee (state).


After a trial to the court, the defendant was found guilty as a youthful offender on the charge of carrying a dangerous weapon without a permit, in violation of 53-206 of the General Statutes.

"[General Statutes] Sec. 53-206. CARRYING AND SALE OF DANGEROUS WEAPONS. (a) Any person who carries upon his person any slung shot, air rifle, BB gun, blackjack, sand bag, metal or brass knuckles, or any dirk knife, or a switch knife, or any knife having an automatic spring release device by which a blade is released from the handle, having a blade of over one and one-half inches in length, or stiletto, or any knife the edged portion of the blade of which is four inches or over in length, or any other dangerous or deadly weapon or instrument, unless such person has been granted a written permit issued and signed by the first selectman of a town, the mayor or chief of police of a city or the warden of a borough, authorizing such person to carry such weapon or instrument within such town, city or borough, shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars or imprisoned not more than three years or both. . . ." (Emphasis added.)

The conviction was affirmed by the Appellate Session of the Superior Court. The defendant has come before this court on certification from the Appellate Session.

The main issue to be determined at this juncture is whether the burden is upon the state to prove the lack of a permit, or whether the requirement of having a permit is an affirmative defense, to be pleaded and proved by the defendant.

There is no material conflict as to the basic facts. On July 20, 1977, at 9:30 p.m., two Hartford police officers set up surveillance outside a two-family residence of three floors. After approximately forty-five minutes one of the officers identified the defendant on the roof of the dwelling. The officer testified that he saw the defendant carrying a shotgun or rifle. Additional police units were summoned. Upon the arrival of the additional police units, the officer entered the building under surveillance and arrested the defendant. Others were also arrested. Another officer searched the roof of the building and found two sawed-off shotguns, one long-barreled shotgun, a large bayonet and two Molotov cocktails. The shotguns were loaded.

In affirming the decision of the trial court, the Appellate Session ruled that the phrase "unless such person has been granted a written permit" was not a constituent part of the offense, but was merely an exception. State v. Nathan, 138 Conn. 485, 489, 86 A.2d 322 (1952). The Appellate Session cited Commonwealth v. Stoffan, 228 Pa. Super. 127, 142, 323 A.2d 318 (1974), for the proposition that "where the exception merely furnishes an excuse for what would otherwise be criminal conduct, the duty devolves upon the defendant to bring himself within the exculpatory provision."

The defendant, on the other hand, urges that the essence of the crime is not the carrying of a dangerous weapon, but rather the carrying of a dangerous weapon without a permit. The defendant argues that without proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he did not possess a permit, a finding of guilty is improper. He cites the constitutional right to bear arms; Conn. Const., art. 1 15; U.S. Const., amend. II; and stresses that carrying a weapon is not criminal per se, but only becomes criminal if the weapon is carried without a proper permit. We agree.

Our decision on this issue is premised on a fundamental principle of our law. The burden in a criminal case is placed squarely upon the prosecution to prove each essential element of the alleged crime beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no burden on the defendant to prove his innocence. State v. Beauton, 170 Conn. 234, 240, 365 A.2d 1105 (1976); State v. Brown, 163 Conn. 52, 64, 301 A.2d 547 (1972); State v. Benson, 153 Conn. 209, 215, 214 A.2d 903 (1965) — See Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684, 95 S.Ct. 1881, 44 L.Ed.2d 508 (1975); In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970); Davis v. United States, 160 U.S. 469, 487, 16 S.Ct. 353, 40 L.Ed. 499 (1895).

An examination of the statute brings this court to find a close analogy to the statute interpreted by the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S. 62, 91 S.Ct. 1294, 28 L.Ed.2d 601 (1971). In that case the government had charged the defendant with producing an abortion in violation of the District of Columbia Code. The statute stated that "[w]hoever . . . produces . . . an abortion or miscarriage on any woman, unless the same were done as necessary for the preservation of the mother's life or health and under the direction of a competent licensed practitioner of medicine, shall be imprisoned in the penitentiary not less than one year or not more than ten years." D.C. Code Ann. 22-201.

The court reversed a Court of Appeals ruling which had held that the prosecution was not required to prove, as part of the case in chief, that the operation was not "necessary to preserve life or health." The court stated (p. 70) in Vuitch: "It is a general guide to the interpretation of criminal statutes that when an exception is incorporated in the enacting clause of a statute, the burden is on the prosecution to plead and prove that the defendant is not within the exception."

More recently, this court applied similar reasoning and analysis in State v. Beauton, 170 Conn. 234, 365 A.2d 1105 (1976), a case dealing with a statute and fact situation analogous to the case at hand.

In Beauton, the defendant was found guilty of carrying a dangerous or deadly weapon in a vehicle in violation of 29-38 of the General Statutes, which provides a penalty for any person who knowingly has, in any vehicle owned, operated or occupied by him, "any weapon for which a proper permit has not been issued as provided in section 29-28 or section 53-206." At trial, the state offered no evidence on the question of whether the defendant had a proper permit for the weapon in question. This court concluded (p. 240) that "the lack of a proper permit is an essential element of the crime charged and that the state had the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that a proper permit for the weapon had not been issued as provided in 29-28."

A significant factor in reaching that decision is the fact that the words of 29-38, "for which a proper permit has not been issued," appear as part of the enacting or prohibition clause. The words are an integral part of the statute. State v. Beauton, supra, 241; see 29 Am.Jur.2d, Evidence 153, 154. Similarly, we find the construction and placement of the words in 53-206, "unless such person has been granted a written permit," to be an integral part of the enacting or prohibition clause of that statute. Accordingly, we hold that the prosecution has the burden to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant did not possess a written permit under 53-206.


Summaries of

State v. Anonymous

Supreme Court of Connecticut
Jan 29, 1980
179 Conn. 516 (Conn. 1980)

In State v. Anonymous, 179 Conn. 56 (1980), for example, the Connecticut Supreme Court relied on Vuitch in holding that the exception in the statute, which prohibited the carrying and sale of a dangerous weapon, was part of the enacting clause, and thus part of the prosecution's case-in-chief.

Summary of this case from United States v. Carey

In State v. Anonymous (1980-8), supra, 559-60, the court noted that General Statutes 54-36a, which applies to "property seized in connection with a criminal arrest" in addition to property "seized pursuant to a search warrant," provides that seized property must be returned to its owner "[u]nless such seized property is adjudicated a nuisance in accordance with section 54-33g, or unless the court finds that such property shall be forfeited or is contraband or a controlled substance...."

Summary of this case from State v. One 1977 Buick Automobile

In State v. Anonymous (1980-5), 36 Conn. Sup. 527, 528, 416 A.2d 168 (1980), the Appellate Session of the Superior Court held that a violation of General Statutes 14-227a is a "crime."

Summary of this case from State v. Guckian

In State v. Anonymous (1980-5), 36 Conn. Sup. 527, 416 A.2d 168 (1980), the former Appellate Session of the Superior Court had before it the determination of the nature of the offense of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor in violation of General Statutes 14-227a of the motor vehicle laws.

Summary of this case from State v. Kluttz

In State v. Anonymous (1980-5), supra, the trial court had concluded that it had no jurisdiction to grant the defendant's application for accelerated rehabilitation because the underlying charge did not constitute a "crime."

Summary of this case from State v. Kluttz

In State v. Anonymous (1980-5), 36 Conn. Sup. 527, 531, 416 A.2d 168 (1980), we held that operating while under the influence was an offense encompassed by the word "crime" in 54-76p and, therefore, reversed the decision of the trial court that accelerated rehabilitation was jurisdictionally unavailable in such a case.

Summary of this case from State v. Lavorgna

In State v. Anonymous (1980-5), supra, we indicated that in exercising its discretion upon an application for accelerated rehabilitation the trial court must consider both "the nature of the particular offense and the circumstances of its commission."

Summary of this case from State v. Lavorgna

In Anonymous, the court found "that the term `motor vehicle violation,' not being otherwise defined, incorporates the definition of `violation' contained in 53a-27(a) as an offense punishable only by a fine... [Therefore,] [t]he exception of `motor vehicle violations' from the definition of `offense' is limited to breaches of statutes involving motor vehicles when the only penalty which can be imposed is a fine.

Summary of this case from McCoy v. Boyle

In State v. Anonymous, (1980-5) supra, we indicated that in exercising its discretion upon an application for accelerated rehabilitation the trial court must consider both the "nature of the particular offense and the circumstances of its commission."

Summary of this case from State v. Getchell

In State v. Anonymous, 36 Conn. Sup. 338 (1980), the defendant claimed that he was subjected to selective prosecution as a result of the animosity of the state's attorney toward the defendant.

Summary of this case from State v. Ahern
Case details for

State v. Anonymous

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. ANONYMOUS

Court:Supreme Court of Connecticut

Date published: Jan 29, 1980

Citations

179 Conn. 516 (Conn. 1980)
427 A.2d 403

Citing Cases

State v. Kluttz

" Hayes v. Smith, 194 Conn. 52, 58, 480 A.2d 425 (1984). We recognize that this reasoning is at odds with…

State v. Guckian

We begin with a brief discussion of the pertinent case law as a basis of our analysis. In State v. Anonymous…