Bates v. People
| Decision Date | 26 June 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 24398,24398 |
| Citation | 179 Colo. 81,498 P.2d 1136 |
| Parties | Michael Norman BATES, Plaintiff in Error, v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Kuttler, Redman & Anderson, P.C., Charles H. Booth, Aurora, for plaintiff in error.
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., John P. Moore, Deputy Atty. Gen., George E. DeRoos, Patricia W. Robb, Asst. Attys. Gen., Denver, for defendant in error.
Plaintiff in error, Michael Norman Bates, was charged with maliciously and feloniously destroying personal property and with causing damage to the personal property in an amount exceeding $500. C.R.S. 1963, 40--18--1. He was also charged with conspiracy to commit the identical offense which was described in the malicious mischief charge. C.R.S.1963, 40--7--35. The charges arose out of an incident in which an unmarked Aurora police car was damaged when some dynamite, allegedly thrown out of Bates' automobile window by a co-conspirator, rolled under the police car and exploded. It was undisputed that the damage to the vehicle was approximately $940.
Bates was acquitted of the substantive offense of malicious mischief, but was convicted of conspiracy to commit malicious mischief. On writ of error, Bates contends that the conviction must be reversed because it is totally inconsistent with his acquittal of the substantive charge and is only supported by the evidence which was offered to prove the substantive offense. He also claims that his conviction for conspiracy must be set aside because it is unsupported by the evidence. In our opinion, plaintiff in error's latter argument has merit, and the conviction must be reversed.
All of the incriminating evidence against Bates was based on statements which Bates allegedly made to police officers. Officer Gigikos testified that Bates told him that he was with three other boys in an apartment in East Denver on the evening in question. According to the officer, Bates said that while he was in the apartment, a conversation arose about a traffic ticket that he had received earlier that day. Bates told the officer that the boys in the apartment showed him some dynamite, and one of the boys said that he wanted to go out and blow up the police station. Bates also said that shortly thereafter one of the boys asked to use his car, and when the boy came back a few minutes later, he mentioned a bombing. Officer Gigikos also testified that while questioning Bates further about the incident, he obtained the admission that Bates' first story was untrue. The officer stated that Bates thereafter admitted that he was actually driving the car at the time the dynamite was thrown out of the car. He told the officer that he and another boy had left the apartment together in his car to go out and explode the dynamite in the bushes of the City Park of Aurora. Bates' story was that when they got to the park, they changed their mind, because they would have had to get out of the car to explode the dynamite, and they were afraid of getting caught. Bates told the officers that they drove around the block and were going to thrown the dynamite into the playground at Crawford School, but again decided against it. Subsequently, Bates said they drove around the Aurora Police Department several times, and that on one trip around the police station, the boy riding with him lit the fuse and threw the dynamite out of the window. The boy then exclaimed to Bates, 'Oh, my God, it rolled under a car.' Bates told the officers that his first thought was to get out of the car and try to put the fuse out, but that he decided he had better not and drove off.
Bates contends that reversal is called for because his conviction for conspiracy is inconsistent with his acquittal of the substantive offense of malicious mischief. He cites Robles v. People, 160 Colo. 297, 417 P.2d 232 (1966). In Robles, this Court held that a conspiracy conviction could not be upheld where the defendant was acquitted of the substantive offense and the Only evidence offered to prove the conspiracy was the same evidence that was offered to prove the substantive offense. We have cited the Robles case as controlling authority in Feltes v. People, Colo., 498 P.2d 1128 :announced June 12, 1972); Fagin v. People, Colo., 484 P.2d 1216 (1971); Carter v. People, 169 Colo. 531, 458 P.2d 236 (1969); Petty v. People, 167 Colo. 240, 447 P.2d 217 (1968); People v. Way, 165 Colo. 161, 437 P.2d 535 (1968).
Here, however, the Robles case does not provide an answer, since there was additional evidence from which the jury could have inferred that a conspiracy existed. Testimony was offered to show that shortly before the police car was blown up, Bates had been engaged in a conversation with others during which the potential use of the dynamite was discussed. We have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Lucero
...design. (Mere passive cognizance of the crime to be committed or mere negative acquiescence is not sufficient.)” Bates v. People , 179 Colo. 81, 85, 498 P.2d 1136, 1138 (1972).2. Uniform Controlled Substances Act and Federal Law¶ 14 Colorado adopted a version of the Uniform Controlled Subst......
-
People v. Samson
...with the trial court's interpretation and thus acquiesced in the court's response to the jury to that effect. ¶ 57 Bates v. People, 179 Colo. 81, 498 P.2d 1136 (1972), on which Samson relies, is inapposite. In Bates, 179 Colo. at 85, 498 P.2d at 1138, our supreme court reversed a conviction......
-
State v. Merrill
...share the "purpose of committing [the] felony." Model Penal Code § 5.03 cmt. (2)(c)(I), at 407 (1962); see also Bates v. People, 179 Colo. 81, 498 P.2d 1136, 1138 (1972); Worden v. State Police Merit Board, 30 Ill.App.2d 323, 174 N.E.2d 407, 407 (1961); State v. Mariano, 123 N.M. 121, 934 P......
-
People v. Coca, 25714
...the jury may properly return a verdict of guilty to the conspiracy charge and not guilty to the substantive charge. See also Bates v. People, Colo., 498 P.2d 1136; Armijo v. People, 170 Colo. 411, 462 P.2d Here, clearly there was independent evidence relating to the conspiracy, in addition ......