Benedict v. People
| Decision Date | 21 September 1896 |
| Citation | 46 P. 637,23 Colo. 126 |
| Parties | BENEDICT v. PEOPLE. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Error to district court, Gilpin county.
Antonio Benedict was convicted of a crime, and brings error. Affirmed.
J. McD. Livesay, for plaintiff in error.
B. L Carr, Atty. Gen., F. P. Secor, Asst. Atty. Gen., Calvin E Reed, Asst. Atty. Gen., and L. W. Doloff, for the People.
The defendant was tried and convicted of the infamous crime against nature, and sentenced to the penitentiary. To reverse the judgment a number of errors are assigned, only three of which are argued by counsel for plaintiff in error, and they are the only ones that require consideration.
The point is made that the defendant was not furnished, previous to or at the time of his arraignment, with a copy of the information and a list of the jurors and of the people's witnesses, as the statute prescribes. As originally made up the record does not affirmatively show that this requirement was observed. When, however, this imperfection in the record was called to its attention, the trial court at the same term, and upon a showing made, ordered the record to be amended to speak the truth in this respect. The record as now before us, shows that the statute was fully complied with in the particular mentioned. The right of the court thus to amend its own records is unquestioned, and, for aught that appears, there was abundant evidence before the court to justify the order directing the amendment to be made.
Another objection urged pertains to an alleged error of the court in refusing an instruction asked by defendant's counsel based upon the supposed mental incapacity of the defendant to form a criminal intent at the time of the alleged offense. In order to raise this objection the evidence must be properly preserved by a bill of exceptions. But no bill has been filed in this court, and, so far as we know, none was tendered to the trial judge, or signed by him. Nevertheless, counsel for plaintiff in error seeks to evade this rule of practice and avail himself of the objection in the following way: He filed a motion for a new trial upon the ground, inter alia, that the defendant was incapable of forming a criminal intent, and that an instruction asked by him, applicable to this issue, was improperly refused by the court. In support of this motion he claims that he produced before the court the affidavits of three of the jurors to the effect that such was their belief as to the defendant's mental condition, and the clerk certifies that such affidavits were filed in the case. Such a method of preserving the evidence is not only unknown to our practice but certainly would not be tolerated by any reasonable rule of practice framed with a view to accuracy and good faith in the trial of causes. For this reason we might altogether ignore these affidavits, but...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Oliver
...108. 29 See, e.g., State v. Beckstead, 96 Utah 528, 88 P.2d 461 (error to exclude friends and relatives of accused); Benedict v. People, 23 Colo. 126, 46 P. 637 (exclusion of all except witnesses, members of bar and law students upheld); People v. Hall, 51 App.Div. 57, 64 N.Y.S. 433 (exclus......
-
State v. Haskins
...State, 19 Ariz. 457, 172 P. 273, L.R.A.1918D, 1093 (Sup.Ct.1918)--witnesses, defendant's relatives and reporters; Benedict v. People, 23 Colo. 126, 46 P. 637 (Sup.Ct.1896)--lawyers, law students, court officers and witnesses; Robertson v. State, 64 Fla. 437, 60 So. 118, 119 (Sup.Ct.1912)--a......
-
United States v. Kobli
...1930, 281 U.S. 276, 50 S.Ct. 253, 74 L.Ed. 854, 70 A.L. R. 263; People v. Swafford, 1884, 65 Cal. 223, 3 P. 809; Benedict v. People, 1896, 23 Colo. 126, 46 P. 637; State v. Hensley, 1906, 75 Ohio St. 255, 79 N.E. 462, 9 L. R.A.,N.S., 277, 116 Am.St.Rep. 734, 9 Ann.Cas. 108; Dutton v. State,......
-
State v. Schmit, 39079
...1034.14 See, Keddington v. State, 19 Ariz. 457, 459, 172 P. 273, 274, L.R.A.1918D, 1093; Callahan v. United States, supra; Benedict v. People, 23 Colo. 126, 46 P. 637; State v. Croak, 167 La. 92, 94, 118 So. 703, 704; Note, 49 Col.L.Rev. 110, 113.15 Scott v. State, 249 Ala. 304, 30 So.2d 68......