6 Conn. Cir. Ct. 549 | Conn. App. Ct. | 1971
These defendants stand convicted, after a jury trial, on the first count of substituted informa-tions charging them with the crime of breach of the peace in violation of § 53-174 of the General Statutes.
In the view we take of these eases, it is necessary for us to consider only the defendants’ contention that the trial court failed to limit its instructions to the jury to the specific acts alleged in the substituted informations.
In one case, the state charged that the defendant “moved herself bodily against members of the . . . Police Department and/or Welfare agents in an aggressive fashion and/or used offensive language against members of the . . . Police Department and/or made threats towards members of the . . . Police Department. This offense took place in the hallway and/or within the office of the Welfare Department . . . .” In the other case, the state alleged that the defendant “hurled himself bodily against members of the . . . Police Department and/or pushed with force the person of ... a member of the . . . Police Department and/or struggled with members of the . . . Police Department. This offense took place outside the offices of the State Welfare Department . . . .”
“A trial court should charge the jury in unequivocal language. The more succinct the statements of the law, the more effective they are for the jury’s guidance.” Quednau v. Langrish, 144 Conn. 706, 714. In short, “brevity in instructions is desirable.” 88 C.J.S. 876, Trial, § 335. Instructions are not to be legal treatises for the use of the legal profession but should enlighten and not confuse jurors unskilled in the law and unversed in legal phraseology. Elliott v. Capital City State Bank, 149 Iowa 309, 319.
We recognize the fact that the trial of these cases was unusually long and protracted by reason of the fact that they were tried together with eight other defendants; nevertheless, broad general statements are inadequate for the guidance of the jury. Pollak v. Danbury Mfg. Co., 103 Conn. 553, 556; Maltbie, Conn. App. Proc. § 87.
Treating the charge as a whole, we think the general terms in which the charge was given fell short
Since a new trial is necessary, there is no need to discuss the remaining assignments of error.
There is error, the judgments are set aside and a new trial is ordered.
In this opinion Dearington and Kinmonth, Js., concurred.
The jury returned a verdict of not guilty to the second count of the substituted informations charging the defendants with the crime of resisting an officer in violation of § 53-165 of the General Statutes.
We deplore the use of the conjunctive-disjunctive form “and/or” in the pleadings because the fractional expression is an equivocal connective, being neither positively conjunctive nor positively disjunctive. “Numerous eases are cited criticizing the use of this phrase 'and/or’ in either civil or criminal pleadings, the most temperate of the criticisms being that it is slovenly pleading.” Gurein v. State,