4 Conn. Cir. Ct. 265 | Conn. App. Ct. | 1967
The information in this case charged the defendant with abandonment of a refrigerator accessible to children in violation of § 23-9 (a) of the municipal code of the city of Hartford. See note, 86 A.L.R.2d 709, 710. The record before us discloses that the state failed to introduce in evidence the ordinance upon which this prosecution was founded.
“The question of the construction of the ordinance is one of law.” Norwalk v. Auction City, Inc., 186 Cal. App. 2d 287, 290. “ ‘Proof’ of the ordinance does not make it a fact; it only presents for judicial consideration a part of the law which may not be as available as other parts.” 2 Sutherland, Statutory Construction § 4305, p. 309. “An appellate court does not take judicial notice of municipal ordinances.” 20 Am. Jur., Evidence, § 38 (Sup.
A test which has been advanced for refusing to take judicial notice of municipal ordinances is the unavailability of source material. In Roden v. Connecticut Co., 113 Conn. 408, 415, our Supreme Court said: “The means to ascertain . . . what ordinances of a city are in effect at any particular time, without change or amendment, are certainly not reasonably available to the courts and frequently they are not capable of ready and unquestionable demonstration.” “The Circuit Court is a State Court, and, as such, its judges cannot be presumed
Since the ordinance is not properly before us and was not before the court below as a matter of evidence, we cannot now, for the purpose of this appeal, consider it by judicial notice. Howard v. United States, 306 F.2d 392, 394.
There is error, the judgment is set aside and a new trial is ordered.
In this opinion Pruyn and Kosicki, Js., concurred.