State v. Carroll

Supreme Court of Connecticut

State v. Carroll

204 A.2d 412, 152 Conn. 703, 1964 Conn. LEXIS 361

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedOctober 29, 1964

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 204 A.2d 412 (State v. Carroll) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Carroll, 204 A.2d 412, 152 Conn. 703, 1964 Conn. LEXIS 361 (Colo. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The defendant, in a trial to the court, was found guilty of the crime of assault wdth intent to commit rape. General Statutes § 53-239. The defendant entered a plea of guilty to simple assault but was tried on the more serious charge.

The sole issue on this appeal is whether the evidence was sufficient, beyond a reasonable doubt, to sustain the conviction. To determine this question, it is necessary to review the evidence which has been printed in the appendices in the briefs. The finding is superfluous. State v. Bill, 146 Conn. 693, 694, 155 A.2d 752; Putney v. Lehigh Truck Equipment Corporation, 145 Conn. 731, 141 A.2d 482. While the state printed no appendix, the defendant did. Prom the testimony of the witnesses and the exhibits, there was sufficient evidence to sustain the court’s conclusion that the assault upon the [704]*704complaining witness by the defendant was with the intent of forcibly haying sexual relations with her against her will.

There is no error.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

The defendant, in a trial to the court, was found guilty of the crime of assault wdth intent to commit rape. General Statutes § 53-239. The defendant entered a plea of guilty to simple assault but was tried on the more serious charge.

The sole issue on this appeal is whether the evidence was sufficient, beyond a reasonable doubt, to sustain the conviction. To determine this question, it is necessary to review the evidence which has been printed in the appendices in the briefs. The finding is superfluous. State v. Bill, 146 Conn. 693, 694, 155 A.2d 752; Putney v. Lehigh Truck Equipment Corporation, 145 Conn. 731, 141 A.2d 482. While the state printed no appendix, the defendant did. Prom the testimony of the witnesses and the exhibits, there was sufficient evidence to sustain the court’s conclusion that the assault upon the [704]*704complaining witness by the defendant was with the intent of forcibly haying sexual relations with her against her will.

There is no error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 A.2d 412, 152 Conn. 703, 1964 Conn. LEXIS 361, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-carroll-conn-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack