Bogart v. Tucker
In Bogart v. Tucker, 164 Conn. 277, 320 A.2d 803 (1973), the court was presented with the following evidence adduced at trial in support of the defendant's motion for a directed verdict: testimony of the defendant owner, an interested party, that she had not given the defendant driver permission to operate her car, testimony of the defendant driver, who was impeached, and testimony of the police officer to whom the defendant driver gave a statement at the scene of the accident. Id.
The Court concluded that a directed verdict was not warranted on the basis of that evidence, holding: "It is the function and exclusive province of the jury to pass on the credibility of witnesses. . . . The defendant asks this court to substitute its own judgment concerning the credibility of witnesses for that of the jury . . . . This court has never arrogated to itself such a power." Id., 282-83.
A defendant's testimony that he had never granted consent for use of his vehicle apparently was not the type of evidence that the Bogart court intended to fall within the category of that which "could not rationally be disbelieved." Id., 282. Rather, such evidence likely would have to demonstrate that it was all but impossible for the defendant to have consented to the use of his vehicle.