Blash v. People
| Decision Date | 01 May 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 22201,22201 |
| Citation | 426 P.2d 966,162 Colo. 484 |
| Parties | Edward Thomas BLASH, Plaintiff in Error, v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Robert W. Caddes, Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Atty. Gen., James F. Pamp, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for defendant in error.
Edward Thomas Blash, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, was convicted of robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery and received a sentence of not less than five nor more than ten years imprisonment in the state penitentiary on each count, the sentences to run consecutively.
On September 29, 1964, one Gerald D. Reynolds, manager of the U-Totem Grocery Store in southeast Denver, was held up by a bandit, armed with a gun, who escaped with $77 taken from the cash drawer. The victim identified pictures of one Michael Ring as that of the person who robbed him. The only evidence which implicated the defendant as a participant in the robbery was his signed confession that he drove the 'get away' car. When this confession (Exhibit B) was offered in evidence its admissibility was challenged and a hearing was held outside the presence of the jury. The objections of the defendant that the confession was obtained in violation of his constitutional rights and was the product of duress and coercion of police officers, were overruled by the court. The court ruled that the exhibit was voluntarily given, and it was admitted in evidence.
After approximately twenty hours had elapsed following submission of the case to the jury, a note was forwarded from the jury to the court, which was as follows:
'As foreman, we the jury members have come to a stalemate situation.
'4 innocent
'8 guilty
'Signed Edwin C. Ryland.'
Thereupon counsel for both parties were summoned and over objection of defendant the trial court gave the following instruction:
'It not appearing to the court at this time that there is any misunderstanding or disagreement among you as to the law of this case or the interpretation of the instructions; that your deliberations have already been unusually prolonged without an agreement being reached; I deem it necessary to the administration of justice that this further instruction relative to your duties as jurors be now given:
'You should consider that this case must at sometime be decided; that you have been selected in the same manner and from the same source, as any future jury must be; that there is no reason to suppose that the case will ever be submitted to twelve persons more intelligent, more impartial or more competent to decide it, or that more or clearer evidence will be produced on the one side or the other; that in order to bring twelve minds to a unanimous conclusion you must examine the questions submitted to you with candor and a proper regard and deference to the opinions of each other; that you ought to pay proper respect to each other's opinions and listen with a disposition to be convinced to each other's arguments.
'If a majority of your number are for conviction, a dissenting juror should consider whether a doubt in his or her own mind is a reasonable one which makes no impression upon the minds of so many persons equally intelligent and honest with themselves, who under the sanction of the same oath have heard the same evidence, with the same attention and an equal desire to arrive at the truth.
'On the other hand, if a majority are for acquittal, the minority ought seriously to ask themselves whether they may not reasonably, and ought not to, doubt the correctness of a judgment from which so many of their number dissent, and distrust the weight or sufficiency of that evidence which fails to carry conviction to the minds of their fellows.
'And, while at the last each juror must act upon his or her own judgment concerning the evidence in the case and not upon the judgment of his or her fellows, it is your duty, guided by the foregoing and by all of the instructions heretofore given in this case, to decide the case, if you can conscientiously do so.
'It is accordingly ordered by the court that you be returned to your jury room for further deliberation.'
The verdicts of guilty were returned fifty minutes after the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Bailey
...v. Hickox, 82 Idaho 18, 348 P.2d 724 (1960), likewise upheld the instruction given in a civil action. See also Blash v. People, 162 Colo. 484, 426 P.2d 966 (1967); State v. Hatley, 72 N.M. 377, 384 P.2d 252 (1963). Annot: 85 A.L.R. 1420; 100 A.L.R.2d The giving of an instruction of the natu......
-
People v. Gonzales
...for more than 24 hours, and actually deliberated for between eight and nine hours. There was no abuse of discretion here. Blash v. People, 162 Colo. 484, 426 P.2d 966; Olguin v. People, 115 Colo. 147, 170 P.2d 285; Leech v. People, 112 Colo. 120, 146 P.2d The jury was instructed, without ob......
-
Lowe v. People, 23931
...the usual step taken by trial courts to break a deadlock. The Allen charge has long been approved by this court as in Blash v. People, 162, Colo. 484, 426 P.2d 966 (1967) and its many predecessors. This court has also criticized the Allen charge on certain sets of facts, Nieto v. People, 16......
-
Taylor v. People, 23851
...to Instruction No. 22, which is commonly known as the 'Allen charge.' The instruction is identical to the one approved in Blash v. People, 162 Colo. 484, 426 P.2d 966. We find no error. However, Lowe v. People, Colo., 488 P.2d 559, contains a discussion of this court's views on appropriate ......