State v. Vasel

Connecticut Superior Court

State v. Vasel

190 A.2d 74, 24 Conn. Super. Ct. 319, 24 Conn. Supp. 319, 1 Conn. Cir. Ct. 573, 1963 Conn. Cir. LEXIS 195

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedFebruary 28, 1963

DocketFile No. MV 16-3886

StatusPublished

This text of 190 A.2d 74 (State v. Vasel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Vasel, 190 A.2d 74, 24 Conn. Super. Ct. 319, 24 Conn. Supp. 319, 1 Conn. Cir. Ct. 573, 1963 Conn. Cir. LEXIS 195 (Colo. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

The defendant was found guilty of operating an automobile while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (General Statutes § 14-227) and has appealed from the judgment rendered, assigning as error that he was not, upon all the evidence, guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the judgment was contrary to law and against the evidence. *Page 320

There was no request for a finding of facts and no finding was made. See Cir. Ct. Rule 7.31.1. A transcript of the evidence was presented for the purpose of this appeal.

The defendant did not file a brief in accordance with Circuit Court Rule 7.45.1. No claim of error, not presented in a written brief duly filed, need be considered. Cir. Ct. Rule 7.47.3. The defendant having failed to file a brief, the appeal is dismissed.

There is no error.

KINMONTH, DEARINGTON and JACOBS, JS., participated in this decision.

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

The defendant was found guilty of operating an automobile while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (General Statutes § 14-227) and has appealed from the judgment rendered, assigning as error that he was not, upon all the evidence, guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the judgment was contrary to law and against the evidence. *Page 320

There was no request for a finding of facts and no finding was made. See Cir. Ct. Rule 7.31.1. A transcript of the evidence was presented for the purpose of this appeal.

The defendant did not file a brief in accordance with Circuit Court Rule 7.45.1. No claim of error, not presented in a written brief duly filed, need be considered. Cir. Ct. Rule 7.47.3. The defendant having failed to file a brief, the appeal is dismissed.

There is no error.

KINMONTH, DEARINGTON and JACOBS, JS., participated in this decision.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 A.2d 74, 24 Conn. Super. Ct. 319, 24 Conn. Supp. 319, 1 Conn. Cir. Ct. 573, 1963 Conn. Cir. LEXIS 195, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-vasel-connsuperct-1963.