It is "reckless indifference to the safety of others which supplies the criminal intent necessary to warrant conviction." State v. Sandro O., 51 Conn. App. 463, 467, 724 A.2d 1127, 1129 (1999) (quoting State v. Camera, 132 Conn. 247, 251, 43 A.2d 664 (1945)). Recklessness requires "a conscious choice of a course of action, either with knowledge of the serious danger to others involved in it, or with knowledge of facts which would disclose such danger to any reasonable man."

In principle, res judicata applies to criminal as well as civil proceedings. Sealfon v. United States, 332 U.S. 575, 578, 68 S.Ct. 237, 92 L.Ed. 180 (1948); Steele v. United States No. 2, 267 U.S. 505, 507, 45 S.Ct. 417, 69 L.Ed. 761 (1924); United States v. Oppenheimer, 242 U.S. 85, 87, 37 S.Ct. 68, 61 L.Ed. 161 (1916); State v. Camera, 132 Conn. 247, 249, 43 A.2d 664 (1945); see also Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436, 443, 90 S.Ct. 1189, 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970); State v. Wilson, 180 Conn. 481, 486, 429 A.2d 931 (1980) (applying the related doctrine of collateral estoppel to criminal cases). Res judicata may operate to preclude relitigation by a criminal defendant as well as by the state.

The plaintiff next contends that the doctrine of res judicata prevents issuance of the second warrant. "In a criminal, as well as in a civil case, the doctrine of res adjudicata requires that a judgment in a former action between the same parties be held conclusive as to any issue therein determined." State v. Camera, 132 Conn. 247, 249, 43 A.2d 664 (1945). The doctrine is enforced on the ground of public policy and seeks to prevent a multiplicity of actions. Corey v. Avco-Lycoming Division, 163 Conn. 309, 316-17, 307 A.2d 155 (1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1116, 93 S.Ct. 903, 34 L.Ed.2d 699 (1973).

E.g., Partmar Corporation v. Paramount Pictures Theatres Corporation, 349 U.S. 89, 90, 74 S.Ct. 414, 98 L.Ed. 532; Slattery v. Maykut, 176 Conn. 147, 156-57, 405 A.2d 76; Pepin v. Danbury, 171 Conn. 74, 79-80, 368 A.2d 88; Connecticut Light Power Co. v. Tax Commissioner, 169 Conn. 58, 61-62, 362 A.2d 958; 46 Am.Jur.2d., Judgments 394; Restatement, Judgments 68-70. It is well settled that the principles of collateral estoppel apply to criminal as well as to civil cases. E.g., Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436, 443, 90 S.Ct. 1189, 25 L.Ed.2d 469; Hoag v. New Jersey, 356 U.S. 464, 470-71, 78 S.Ct. 829, 2 L.Ed.2d 913, reh. denied, 357 U.S. 933, 78 S.Ct. 1366, 2 L.Ed.2d 1375; State v. Camera, 132 Conn. 247, 249, 43 A.2d 664. See also State v. Moeller, 178 Conn. 67, 74-75 n. 6, 420 A.2d 1153.

The ruling was unquestionably harmful, and, therefore, a new trial must be ordered. State v. Camera, 132 Conn. 247, 251, 43 A.2d 664; Bosworth v. Bosworth, 131 Conn. 389, 391, 40 A.2d 186; Kovacs v. Szentes, 130 Conn. 229, 232, 33 A.2d 124; Peck v. Pierce, 63 Conn. 310, 320, 28 A. 524. We need not consider the claim of error in overruling the demurrer of the defendants. "Having now all the facts before us, we are not required to rule upon what would have been the result of some of them if standing alone."

Furthermore, the defendant was entitled to, and was given, a charge safeguarding him from misuse of the evidence by the jury. State v. Palko, 122 Conn. 529, 537, 191 A. 320; State v. Costa, supra, 146; see also State v. Chapman, 103 Conn. 453, 481, 130 A. 899; State v. Gilligan, 92 Conn. 526, 530, 103 A. 649; cf. State v. Camera, 132 Conn. 247, 251, 43 A.2d 664. Evidence that Lucy, subsequent to the date of the threat to which Riley testified, had been in the defendant's company on an apparently friendly basis did not, as the defendant claimed, render evidence of the threat inadmissible although it did affect its weight.

State v. Tucker, 75 Conn. 201, 203, 52 A. 741; see Yavis v. Sullivan, 137 Conn. 253, 264, 76 A.2d 99. The final claim pursued in the defendant's brief relates to rulings on evidence and complains of the admission of "quantities of evidence" tending to show misappropriations by the defendant which were not included in any count in the information and which he claims were not connected with any count. Of course it is correct, as claimed by the defendant, that "evidence that one accused of a certain crime has committed other similar but unconnected crimes" is ordinarily inadmissible in proof of the crime charged; State v. Camera, 132 Conn. 247, 251, 43 A.2d 664, and cases cited; although it should not be overlooked that the rule has certain apparent exceptions, as is explained in cases such as State v. Chapman, 103 Conn. 453, 482, 130 A. 899; State v. Palko, 122 Conn. 529, 536, 191 A. 320; and State v. Barnes, 132 Conn. 370, 372, 44 A.2d 708. A claimed evidential ruling particularly stressed relates to the so-called Curcio transaction.

We therefore cannot say that the error was harmless. Peck v. Pierce, 63 Conn. 310, 320, 28 A. 524; Bosworth v. Bosworth, 131 Conn. 389, 391, 40 A.2d 186; State v. Camera, 132 Conn. 247, 251, 43 A.2d 664. While this error vitiates the judgment as to the corporation and Chester L. Syska, it does not do so as to Agnes B. Syska. This is because of the order in which the evidence upon which the finding purports to be based was offered and received at the trial.

" (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Camera, 132 Conn. 247, 251, 43 A.2d 664 (1945). While speed alone may be insufficient to warrant a conviction for reckless driving, it may be taken into consideration in conjunction with other circumstances to show a reckless disregard of consequences.

General Statutes 14-222 prohibits reckless driving and provides that "[t]he operation of a motor vehicle upon any . . . parking area for ten cars or more at such a rate of speed as to endanger the life of any person other than the operator of such motor vehicle . . . shall constitute a violation of the provisions of this section." The reckless indifference to the safety of others supplies the criminal intent necessary for conviction. State v. Camera, 132 Conn. 247, 251, 43 A.2d 664 (1945); State v. Egidio, 24 Conn. Sup. 108, 111, 1 Conn. Cir. Ct. 435 (1962); State v. Mahalik, 22 Conn. Sup. 400, 403, 1 Conn. Cir. Ct. 62 (1961). While speed alone is insufficient to warrant conviction, it may be taken into consideration with other circumstances to show a reckless disregard of consequences.