Eaddy v. People

Citation115 Colo. 488,174 P.2d 717
Decision Date12 November 1946
Docket Number15682.
PartiesEADDY v. PEOPLE.
CourtSupreme Court of Colorado

Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; Joseph E. Cook Judge.

Ernest Eaddy was convicted of first degree murder, and he brings error. On application for supersedeas.

Reversed and remanded.

Walter F. Scherer, and Morton M. David, both of Denver, for plaintiff in error.

H Lawrence Hinkley, Atty. Gen., Duke W. Dunbar, Deputy Atty Gen., and James S. Henderson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendants in error.

STONE Justice.

Defendant was convicted of murder of the first degree, and sentenced to life imprisonment. He here seeks review praying that the matter be determined upon his application for supersedeas.

Defendant urges as error: (1) Overruling motion for mistrial because of the separation of the jury during the trial; (2) refusal of directed verdict for failure to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and (3) being compelled to stand trial clothed in the garb of a convict. It is also urged as error that the verdict is contrary to law because based upon the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice, but this ground is not argued and has no merit.

First, as to permitting the jury to separate. The jury was composed in part of men and in part of women. When it became necessary for the jury to be held overnight, the women jurors were housed in the dormitory in the West Side Courthouse while the men were housed in one of the dormitories in the Municipal building. At all times each group of jurors was in the charge of a bailiff of the court and there is no suggestion that they were at any time subject to outside influences. Thus there was shown no separation of the jury in the sense that the jurors were at any time out of the custody of a bailiff or in position to communicate with outsiders in regard to the case, and there was no separation except under necessity created by the constitutional amendment making women eligible for jury service. Const. art. 2, § 23, see Laws 1945, c. 158. Consequently, the rule against separation was not violated. 'The rule that the jury must be kept together does not apply, even in capital cases, to temporary separation of one or more jurors from the others in cases of necessity or convenience, where the separating jurors are in the charge or in sight of an officer and are not allowed to communicate with other persons.' 23 C.J.S., Criminal Law, pp. 1017, 1018, § 1356. Further, there is no showing of prejudice. Amis v. People, 83 Colo. 400, 265 P. 909.

Second, as to the sufficiency of the evidence. No purpose would be served by its review. That a mercenary, brutal and deliberate murder was committed clearly appears, and the evidence was sufficient, if believed by the jury, to support its finding that the defendant had part therein. Since the cause is remanded for a new trial, the question of sufficiency of the evidence will be for determination by a jury to be empanelled upon the evidence then submitted.

Third, as to the clothing worn by defendant during the trial. The record shows that defendant was a colored soldier, attired at the time of his arrest in United States Army uniform. At the trial he was brought into court wearing striped coveralls with the words 'County Jail' written in large letters across the back. Objection to this garb in behalf of defendant and request that the court direct the proper officer to return him to the courtroom properly attired were overruled. Did this constitute prejudicial error?

Ordinarily a defendant may be brought to trial in the garments in which he is apprehended unless he himself procures other fit garments, in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
82 cases
  • Estelle v. Williams
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • May 3, 1976
    ...Zapata, 220 Cal.App.2d 903, 34 Cal.Rptr. 171 (1963), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 406, 84 S.Ct. 1633, 12 L.Ed.2d 495 (1964); Eaddy v. People, 115 Colo. 488, 174 P.2d 717 (1946). The American Bar Association's Standards for Criminal Justice also disapprove the practice. ABA Project on Standards fo......
  • Kennedy v. Cardwell
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • October 30, 1973
    ...United States v. Samuel, 431 F.2d 610, 614 (4th Cir. 1970). As the Supreme Court of Colorado stated in Eaddy v. People, 115 Colo. 488, 492, 174 P.2d 717, 718-719 (1946). the presumption of innocence requires the garb of innocence, and regardless of the ultimate outcome, or of the evidence a......
  • State v. Peacher
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • July 14, 1981
    ...prison garb is a practice long disfavored and frequently condemned. As the Supreme Court of Colorado said in Eaddy v. People, 115 Colo. 488, 174 P.2d 717, 718-719 (1946): "The presumption of innocence requires the garb of innocence, and regardless of the ultimate outcome, or of the evidence......
  • People v. Duran
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • February 27, 1976
    ...is . . . brought before the court with the appearance, dignity, and self-respect of a free and innocent man.' (Eaddy v. People (1946) 115 Colo. 488, 492, 174 P.2d 717, 719; see also Illinois v. Allen, supra, 397 U.S. 337, 350--351, 90 S.Ct. 1057, 25 L.Ed.2d 353 (Brennan, J. concurring); Ken......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT