DocketNumber: File No. MV 6-85510
Citation Numbers: 6 Conn. Cir. Ct. 520
Judges: Jacobs
Filed Date: 8/14/1970
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 9/8/2022
The facts as shown by the record are as follows: On April 25, 1968, the defendant was convicted in the Circuit Court in the sixth circuit of the crime of using a motor vehicle without the owner’s permission in violation of § 14-229 of the General Statutes.
The sole issue on this appeal is whether “the State of Connecticut, by its action in issuing a home training certificate on June 18, 1969 to the defendant’s mother in his behalf (a certificate popularly known as a learner’s permit) [is] . . . estopped from simultaneously proceeding against the defendant on a charge of driving under suspension in violation of § 14-215.”
Courts have traditionally held that the government may not be estopped in criminal prosecutions. “‘[T]he King cannot be estopped, for it cannot be presumed the King would do wrong to any person ....’” 15 Halsbury, Laws of England (3d Ed.), p. 248, n. (p); see 31 C.J.S. 695, Estoppel, § 140 (c); 28 Am. Jur. 2d, Estoppel and Waiver, § 126. Nevertheless, argues the defendant, “[t]he solidly entrenched, though little discussed, judicial principle that the government cannot be estopped in criminal actions, is now subject to some doubts”; comment, “Applying Estoppel Principles in Criminal Cases,” 78 Yale L.J. 1046; and where, as in this ease, the state issued a home training certificate on which the defendant relied, that fact creates a valid estoppel defense against prosecution under the statute.
If we were to follow the theory advanced by the defendant, a defense of criminal estoppel would in effect permit an individual state official or state agency to suspend the statutory penal law, thereby taking it upon himself to define the limits of the criminal law. “No official or agency of government has the authority to waive the public interest, and
State v. Ragland, 4 Conn. Cir. Ct. 424, cited in defendant’s brief, is factually distinguishable from the case at bar.
The defendant’s contention of estoppel amounts to an assertion that a state agency or state official may waive the penal laws of this state. We find nothing in the Ragland case, supra, or in the other cases cited by the defendant, which supports this contention.
There is no error.
In this opinion Deaeingtoít and Cásale, Js., concurred.
I,or a first violation of the statute (§ 14-229), the maximum authorized penalty is a fine of not more than $1000 or imprisonment of not more than one year or both.
See 7 Am. Jur. 2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic, § 105.
Section 14-36 (a) provided that “any person over sixteen years of age who has not had such a [motor vehicle operator’s] license suspended or revoked may, for a period not exceeding thirty days, operate a motor vehicle while under the instructions of, and accompanied by, a person . . . licensed ... to operate . . . , who shall have full control of the motor vehicle as provided by law.”
The opinion in State v. Jiaglanct was cited and quoted with approval by the Maryland intermediate appellate eourt in Frasher v. State, 8 Md. App. 439, 452 (1970).