Opinion
To review the defendant's claim that his guilt was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, resort is had to the evidence as printed in the appendices to the briefs. No finding is necessary. Held that the evidence was ample to sustain the court's conclusion that the defendant was the man who tendered a forged check in payment of a quantity of liquor and that be was guilty as charged.
Argued October 14, 1965
Decided December 9, 1965
Information, in the first part, charging the defendant, in the first count, with the crime of forgery and, in the second count, with obtaining money and goods by false pretenses and, in the second part, with a previous conviction and imprisonment in the state prison, brought to the Superior Court in Hartford County, where the issues under the first part were tried to the court, Troland, J.; judgment of not guilty on the first count, of guilty on the second count and, the defendant having pleaded guilty to the second part of the information, of guilty on the second part, from which judgment the defendant appealed. No error.
William Barnett, special assistant public defender, for the appellant (defendant).
George D. Stoughton, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, was John D. LaBelle, state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
In a trial to the court the defendant was found guilty of the crime of obtaining, by false pretenses, money and goods of the total value of $93.20. He claims that the state did not prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant filed a request for a finding in which he stated the question to be reviewed was that "upon all the evidence" he was not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. To review that claim a finding was not necessary and should not have been requested since that claim could be tested only by the evidence as printed in the appendices to the briefs. State v. Taylor, 153 Conn. 72, 87, 214 A.2d 362; State v. Pundy, 147 Conn. 7, 9, 156 A.2d 193; State v. Bill, 146 Conn. 693, 694, 155 A.2d 752.
There was evidence that on October 1, 1960, a man entered a package store in New Britain known as the North Package Store. He ordered four bottles of liquor and tendered a check for $93.20 in payment. This check was forged and was one of several stolen from the office of Emil Polce and Sons in Hartford. The main defense was that it was a case of mistaken identity. There was ample evidence to support the court's conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the man who entered the North Package Store on October 1, 1960, and tendered the forged check in payment of his purchase of the four bottles of liquor, and that he was guilty as charged.