State v. Roos

Supreme Court of Connecticut

State v. Roos

452 A.2d 1163, 188 Conn. 644, 1982 Conn. LEXIS 625

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedDecember 14, 1982

Docket9990

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 452 A.2d 1163 (State v. Roos) 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. Roos, 452 A.2d 1163, 188 Conn. 644, 1982 Conn. LEXIS 625 (Colo. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

*645 Per Curiam.

The defendant, Charles Roos, was tried before a jury on a charge of sexual assault in the second degree 1 and found guilty. The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in its charge to the jury by instructing them that they should consider the defendant’s interest in the outcome of the case when weighing his credibility as a witness. The defendant duly excepted during trial and claims on appeal that this portion of the charge was inconsistent with the presumption of innocence and denied him his right to due process of law.

The defendant’s claim of error is utterly without merit. “ ‘The rule is well settled in this state that the court may advise the jury that in weighing the credibility of an accused’s testimony they can consider his interest in the outcome of the trial.’ State v. Guthridge, 164 Conn. 145, 151, 318 A.2d 87 (1972), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 988, 93 S. Ct. 1519, 36 L. Ed. 2d 186 (1973).” State v. Maselli, 182 Conn. 66, 74, 437 A.2d 836 (1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1083, 101 S. Ct. 868, 66 L. Ed. 2d 807 (1981). We have repeatedly considered and rejected this constitutional claim. State v. Avcollie, 188 Conn. 626, 636-37, 453 A.2d 418 (1982), and cases cited.

There is no error.

1

General Statutes § 53a-71 (a) (1).

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

*645 Per Curiam.

The defendant, Charles Roos, was tried before a jury on a charge of sexual assault in the second degree 1 and found guilty. The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in its charge to the jury by instructing them that they should consider the defendant’s interest in the outcome of the case when weighing his credibility as a witness. The defendant duly excepted during trial and claims on appeal that this portion of the charge was inconsistent with the presumption of innocence and denied him his right to due process of law.

The defendant’s claim of error is utterly without merit. “ ‘The rule is well settled in this state that the court may advise the jury that in weighing the credibility of an accused’s testimony they can consider his interest in the outcome of the trial.’ State v. Guthridge, 164 Conn. 145, 151, 318 A.2d 87 (1972), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 988, 93 S. Ct. 1519, 36 L. Ed. 2d 186 (1973).” State v. Maselli, 182 Conn. 66, 74, 437 A.2d 836 (1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1083, 101 S. Ct. 868, 66 L. Ed. 2d 807 (1981). We have repeatedly considered and rejected this constitutional claim. State v. Avcollie, 188 Conn. 626, 636-37, 453 A.2d 418 (1982), and cases cited.

There is no error.

1

General Statutes § 53a-71 (a) (1).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

452 A.2d 1163, 188 Conn. 644, 1982 Conn. LEXIS 625, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-roos-conn-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack