2 Conn. Cir. Ct. 369 | Conn. App. Ct. | 1963
The defendant was convicted of speeding in violation of § 14-219 of the General Statutes and has appealed upon the sole ground that the court erred in “refusing to allow the defendant to examine the radar speed detection equipment referred to in the attached exhibit, for the reason that the defendant was not entitled to examine said equipment prior to trial.” No finding of facts was requested, and the only evidence filed with this court concerns the defendant’s request for a continuance to inspect the radar machine and the court’s decision thereon.
The record before us discloses that the defendant was arrested on February 6, 1963, at 10:11 a.m.
The refusal to adjourn the trial to enable a party to procure further evidence is a matter of discretion of the court and is subject to review on appeal only if there was an abuse of the court’s discretion. Lewis v. Havens, 40 Conn. 363, 370; see Rusch v. Cox, 130 Conn. 26, 32; State v. McLaughlin, 126 Conn. 257, 260; Gaul v. Baker, 108 Conn. 173, 179; Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Southbury, 95 Conn. 88, 93; Allen v. Chase, 81 Conn. 474, 478; Crotty v. Danbury, 79 Conn. 379, 383; DeWandelaer v. Sawdey, 78 Conn. 654, 657; State v. Lee, 69 Conn. 186, 193; White v. Portland, 63 Conn. 18, 20.
What is now § 168 of the 1963 Practice Book provides “for the production for inspection, or copying
The defendant argued in support of his motion that he desired the S-5 radar equipment so that his expert could familiarize himself with this particular machine, which he had never seen. The defendant produced the expert witness and must be bound by
There is no error.
In this opinion Kinmonth and Pruyn, Js., concurred.