State v. Marsala
Citations
- 337 Conn. 55
Syllabus
Convicted, after a jury trial, of the crime of criminal trespass in the first degree, the defendant appealed to the Appellate Court, claiming that the trial court improperly declined to instruct the jury on the infraction of simple trespass as a lesser included offense. The defendant's conviction stemmed from his conduct in entering and panhandling on shopping mall property despite having been previously banned from the property by mall security officers and having been told by a private duty police officer, S, that he would be arrested for trespassing if he entered the property again. At trial, the defendant claimed that the first degree criminal trespass statute (§ 53a-107 (a) (1)) requires that an order not to enter the property be communicated ''by the owner of the premises or other authorized person'' and that the state failed to prove that S was authorized to communicate such an order to the defendant. Follow- ing the close of evidence, the defendant requested a jury instruction on simple trespass as a lesser included offense of first degree criminal trespass, which the trial court denied. The defendant appealed to the Appellate Court, which affirmed the judgment of conviction. On the granting of certification, the defendant appealed to this court, claiming that the Appellate Court incorrectly determined, for purposes of State v. Whistnant (179 Conn. 576), that there was no evidence that could have permitted the jury to find him not guilty of first degree criminal trespass but also find him guilty of simple trespass. Specifically, the defendant claimed that the jury could have agreed with him that the state failed to prove that mall security personnel and S were authorized to ban him from mall property, and thus have found him not guilty of first degree criminal trespass, but nonetheless have found that the state proved that the defendant had been told multiple times that he was not allowed to enter the property to panhandle and thus have found him guilty of s
Judges: Robinson; Palmer; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Kahn; Ecker
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
1 case in this archive cites this case.
Cites
10 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- State v. WhistnantSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1980-02-12· cited 230×
- State v. BeltonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1983-06-28· cited 82×
- State v. KinchenSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1998-03-03· cited 38×
- State v. ManleySupreme Court of Connecticut· 1985-04-02· cited 33×
- State v. LangleySupreme Court of Connecticut· 2011-09-07· cited 30×
- State v. JonesSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2008-12-23· cited 23×
- State v. LangleyConnecticut Appellate Court· 2011-04-26· cited 6×
- United States v. NurFirst Circuit· 2015-08-27· cited 4×
- State v. HarperConnecticut Appellate Court· 2016-08-02· cited 2×
- State v. MarsalaSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2019-01-23· cited 1×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.