State v. Panucci

Supreme Court of Connecticut

State v. Panucci

109 A. 294, 95 Conn. 74, 1920 Conn. LEXIS 66

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedJune 10, 1920

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 109 A. 294 (State v. Panucci) 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. Panucci, 109 A. 294, 95 Conn. 74, 1920 Conn. LEXIS 66 (Colo. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

After verdict the accused moved to set it aside as against the evidence. This motion was *75 denied, and the only reason of appeal is one complaining of the denial.

The accused admitted that he fired the shots, one or two of which hit Morino and caused his death. Upon the evidence the jury reasonably could have found that the killing, thus occasioned, was neither accidental, justifiable, nor without malice. It surely could not have found that it was accidental, and the fact, abundantly established by the testimony, that the accused, after a wordy altercation with his victim, in the course of which a blow or blows were struck, left the room in which that altercation occurred, went into an adjoining bedroom, obtained a loaded revolver from a bureau therein, and returned with it to the room which he had left, to open fire upon his victim, was too persuasive that the accused’s conduct was actuated by malice to be overcome in the mind of a trier by the most unsatisfactory testimony which was presented to give a different color to his conduct. At least the jury reasonably could have refused to accept this testimony as giving such color, and find upon the evidence that, the admitted killing was with malice.

There is no error.

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

Per Curiam.

After verdict the accused moved to set it aside as against the evidence. This motion was *75 denied, and the only reason of appeal is one complaining of the denial.

The accused admitted that he fired the shots, one or two of which hit Morino and caused his death. Upon the evidence the jury reasonably could have found that the killing, thus occasioned, was neither accidental, justifiable, nor without malice. It surely could not have found that it was accidental, and the fact, abundantly established by the testimony, that the accused, after a wordy altercation with his victim, in the course of which a blow or blows were struck, left the room in which that altercation occurred, went into an adjoining bedroom, obtained a loaded revolver from a bureau therein, and returned with it to the room which he had left, to open fire upon his victim, was too persuasive that the accused’s conduct was actuated by malice to be overcome in the mind of a trier by the most unsatisfactory testimony which was presented to give a different color to his conduct. At least the jury reasonably could have refused to accept this testimony as giving such color, and find upon the evidence that, the admitted killing was with malice.

There is no error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 A. 294, 95 Conn. 74, 1920 Conn. LEXIS 66, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-panucci-conn-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack