Baker v. People
| Decision Date | 06 November 1922 |
| Docket Number | 10498. |
| Citation | 210 P. 323,72 Colo. 207 |
| Parties | BAKER et al. v. PEOPLE. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Error to Otero County Court; E. C. Glenn, Judge.
Fred Baker, Cliff Fleming, and Walter House were convicted of preventing a named person from engaging in his lawful occupation by means of threats, force, and intimidation, and they bring error and apply for supersedeas.
Supersedeas denied, and judgment affirmed.
John A Martin, of Pueblo, for plaintiffs in error.
Victor E. Keyes, Atty. Gen., and Charles R. Conlee, Asst. Atty Gen., for the People.
Plaintiffs in error were convicted under an information which charged that they did forcibly, 'by means of threats, force, and intimidation, prevent one C. H. Eckels from engaging in his lawful occupation in the yards and shops of the Atchison Topeka & Santa Fé Railway Company at La Junta, Colo., a place chosen by the said Eckels to work.' They have brought the cause here on error, and now ask that the writ be made a supersedeas.
The only ground of error argued is that the court, over the objection of defendants, admitted the testimony of two witnesses whose names were not indorsed upon the information. These witnesses were the sheriff of the county of Otero and his undersheriff. The district attorney, on the trial, in asking leave to indorse the names of these witnesses on the information, stated to the court that during a recess of the court he had first learned of new testimony. The court thereupon allowed the names to be indorsed on the information, and the witnesses testified in the cause. Counsel for the defendants afterwards moved to strike the testimony, which motion was overruled. No request was made for a continuance, nor was any statement made that the defense was surprised by the calling of these witnesses.
Counsel for plaintiffs in error insist that the district attorney must have known, from the first, that these witnesses were material. If that be so, it should also have been known by the defense; that is to say, if the official positions which they held would have advised the district attorney that they would be material witnesses, that fact should have had the same effect in giving notice to the attorney for the defense. Section 1958, R. S. 1908, specifically provides that the requirement that the names of all witnesses shall be indorsed----
'shall not preclude the calling of witnesses whose names or the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Roll v. People
...discretion in permitting the witness Schubert to be endorsed and to testify. If authority is deemed essential, we refer to Baker v. People, 72 Colo. 207, 210 P. 323; Stone v. People, 71 Colo. 162, 204 P. 897; Kloberdanz v. People, 95 Colo. 30, 31 P.2d 1111; Grandbouche v. People, 104 Colo. ......
-
Gorum v. People
...Colo. 1, 284 P.2d 665; Grandbouche v. People, 104 Colo. 175, 89 P.2d 577; Kloberdanz v. People, 95 Colo. 30, 31 P.2d 1111; Baker v. People, 72 Colo. 207, 210 P. 323; Stone v. People, 71 Colo. 162, 204 P. 897; Wickham v. People, 41 Colo. 345, 93 P. 478. Nowhere in the record nor in the motio......
-
Grandbouche v. People
...the discretion of the trial court, and we find nothing in the record from which we can say that such discretion was abused. Baker v. People, 72 Colo. 207, 210 P. 323; Stone v. People, 71 Colo. 162, 204 P. Nor does the record reflect any prejudicial error with regard to the time and place of......
-
Stoudt v. People
...in connection therewith will not be a basis for reversal unless there be a clear showing of an abuse of discretion. See Baker v. People, 72 Colo. 207, 210 P. 323; and Gorum v. People, 137 Colo. 1, 320 P.2d In the instant case Stoudt had some five days to interview these newly endorsed witne......