State v. Weisser

518 A.2d 655, 9 Conn. App. 255, 1986 Conn. App. LEXIS 1173
CourtConnecticut Appellate Court
DecidedDecember 9, 1986
Docket4336
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 518 A.2d 655 (State v. Weisser) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Appellate Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Weisser, 518 A.2d 655, 9 Conn. App. 255, 1986 Conn. App. LEXIS 1173 (Colo. Ct. App. 1986).

Opinions

Hull, J.

The defendant was charged in Superior Court in the New Haven judicial district with breach of the peace, in violation of General Statutes § 53a-181, interfering with an officer, in violation of General Statutes § 53a-167a (a), and vending without a permit, in violation of General Statutes § 21-35. The charges arose out of a complaint that the defendant was playing his radio too loud near his flower vendor stand on the corner of York Street and Broadway in New Haven.

[256]*256He was eventually charged in a second substitute information with the infraction of creating a public disturbance in violation of General Statutes § SSa-lSla.1 At arraignment, he claimed a trial by jury, which was denied. His case was tried to the court, which found him guilty and fined him $60. In this appeal, the defendant claims two grounds of error in the denial of his claim for a trial by jury: (1) that the court erred in denying him a trial by jury under the provisions of article first, § 8, of the constitution of Connecticut;2 and (2) that the court erred in denying him a trial by jury under the provisions of article first, § 19, of the constitution of Connecticut.3

A person charged with an infraction is not entitled to a jury trial under General Statutes § 54-82b.4 The use of an information to charge an offense not other[257]*257wise entitled to a trial by jury does not thereby entitle a defendant to a trial by jury, despite the provisions of article first, § 8, of the constitution of Connecticut. State v. Gorra Bros., Inc., 4 Conn. Cir. Ct. 488, 236 A.2d 345 (1967).

Concerning the second claim of a right to a trial by jury, we note that General Statutes § 53a-181a is a literal transposing of the introductory language and first three sections of the disorderly conduct statute, General Statutes § 53a-182. This creation of an exact replica of part of the offense of disorderly conduct was enacted in No. 83-226 of the 1983 Public Acts. The purpose of replicating this language of the existing disorderly conduct statute was to give police and the prosecuting authorities discretion to charge, where deemed appropriate, the infraction of creating a public disturbance rather than the class C misdemeanor of disorderly conduct. 26 S. Proc., Pt. 8, 1983 Sess., p. 2535.

We thus look to judicial precedent concerning the right to a trial by jury when charged with disorderly conduct in violation of General Statutes § 53a-182. There is long standing precedent that the crime of disorderly conduct is not substantially similar to any common law crime in Connecticut for which there was a right to a trial by jury. Thus, a defendant is not entitled to a trial by jury under article first, § 19, of the constitution of Connecticut. See State v. Anonymous, (1971-4), 6 Conn. Cir. Ct. 402, 275 A.2d 620 (1971); State v. Boyer, 2 Conn. Cir. Ct. 288, 198 A.2d 222 (1963); State v. Avnayim, 24 Conn. Sup. 7, 185 A.2d 295 (1962). As we stated in O’Connor v. O’Connor, 4 Conn. App. 19, 20, 492 A.2d 207, cert. granted, 196 Conn. 812, 495 A.2d 280 (1985), “[i]n the face of this uniform . . . precedent, whether the traditional rule [258]*258. . . should be reevaluated and possibly discarded in appropriate circumstances is not for this court to decide.”

We find no error.

In this opinion, Bieluch, J., concurred.

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

Related

State v. JIMENEZ-JARAMILL
38 A.3d 239 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2012)
Blakeney v. Warden, State Prison, No. Cv 93 1744 S (Jan. 5, 1996)
1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 69 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1996)
In re Prudencio O.
643 A.2d 265 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1994)
State v. Ong
618 A.2d 583 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1993)
State v. Wright
590 A.2d 486 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1991)
State v. Anthony
588 A.2d 214 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1991)
Skinner v. Angliker
559 A.2d 701 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1989)
Skinner v. Angliker
544 A.2d 246 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1988)
State v. Lawrence
541 A.2d 550 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1988)
State v. Lo Sacco
531 A.2d 184 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1987)
State v. Mention
530 A.2d 645 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1987)
State v. Napoleon
530 A.2d 634 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1987)
State v. Devanney
530 A.2d 650 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1987)
State v. Weisser
519 A.2d 1207 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
518 A.2d 655, 9 Conn. App. 255, 1986 Conn. App. LEXIS 1173, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-weisser-connappct-1986.