Bustos v. People
| Decision Date | 15 November 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 21298,21298 |
| Citation | 158 Colo. 451,408 P.2d 64 |
| Parties | Arthur Frank BUSTOS alias Arthur Frank Padilla, Plaintiff in Error, v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Martin A. Kane, Leo T. Zuckerman, Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Atty. Gen., George E. DeRoos, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.
The defendant, Arthur Frank Bustos, brings writ of error from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of aggravated robbery.
The evidence presented in the trial court established that a tavern was robbed by a masked gunman on August 17, 1962, between 9:30 and 10:00 P.M. One Joseph Jimenez, a bartender at the establishment, testified that between 9:30 and 10:00 P.M. a man wearing a Navy type mask entered the tavern. With gun in hand, the man approached Jimenez. When the man reached the end of the bar, he pointed the weapon at Jimenez and ordered him to 'Call the customers into the kitchen.' To this the gunman added that 'This is a stick up.' Jimenez further testified that approximately $400.00 was taken during the course of the robbery.
Another witness for the prosecution, Jacob Trujillo, testified he was playing pool in the tavern at the time of the robbery. The masked gunman demanded Trujillo's wallet. When Trujillo refused the gunman's demand, a struggle ensued between the two men. During the course of the struggle, Trujillo succeeded in unmasking the gunman. Once unmasked, Trujillo was able to observe the gunman's face. In the police line-up, shortly after the robbery, Trujillo identified the defendant as the gunman involved in the robbery.
Trujillo's wife, another witness to the robbery, testified that she saw the gunman's face after his mask had been removed. At the police line-up, she also, separately and independently from her husband, identified the defendant as the gunman.
One Angelo Pereyra testified that he was standing outside the tavern at the time of the robbery. He observed a car parked outside the tavern with its motor running. A short time later, Pereyra saw a man carrying a little bag hurrying from the tavern. The man got into the car and drove away in a northerly direction. During his observations, Pereyra saw the man's face and identified the defendant as the same man he saw leaving the tavern.
Finally, Police Officer Markham testified as to People's Exhibit A. Markham identified the mask as the one he found in the driveway at 3428 Navajo Street. This address was two or three houses directly north of the tavern and on the same side of the street.
The defendant was charged with robbery under C.R.S. '53, 40-5-1 of one Thomas V. Lopez. Subsequently, and before the trial, the information was amended by the court by striking the name of 'Thomas V. Lopez' and substituting 'Joe Jimenez.'
The defendant raises three arguments in his brief: (1) the trial court erred in permitting the information to be amended at trial by changing the name of the victim; (2) the trial court erred in permitting testimony concerning Exhibit A, a mask, and thereafter the admission into evidence of the mask which was found near the scene of the crime; and (3) the evidence did not sufficiently identify the defendant as the person who committed the robbery. At oral argument before this Court, counsel contended also that the defense conducted by assigned counsel for Bustos was inadequate.
We find no error in the action of the trial court in permitting the amendment of the information which was made prior to trial, before the jury was impanelled, and before evidence was presented. Colo.R.Crim.P. 7(e) states:
'The court may permit an information to be amended as to form or substance at any time prior to trial; the court may permit it to be amended as to form at any time before verdict or finding if no additional or different offense is charged and if substantial rights of the defendant are not prejudiced.'
The record indicates that a week preceding the trial the district attorney notified the defendant's attorney that he was going to seek leave to amend the information in the manner in which he did. At the time of notification and at the trial, defendant's attorney stated that he had no objection to the amendment. In addition, defendant's attorney stated that the amendment made no difference in the preparation of his case, and it is apparent from the record that this was necessarily true. The amendment merely changed the name of the victim of the robbery. The defense was alibi. It was immaterial in the trial of this case whether the bartender who was robbed was named Lopez or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Diggs v. People
...in light of the above tests. See also Evans v. People, Colo., 486 P.2d 1062; Torres v. People, 159 Colo. 254, 411 P.2d 10; Bustos v. People, 158 Colo. 451, 408 P.2d 64. IV. Defendant's contention that 1967 Perm.Supp., C.R.S.1963, 40--25--1 is unconstitutional because of vagueness and over-b......
-
People v. Brake
...to be admissible without showing a chain of custody. See Claxton v. People, 164 Colo. 283, 434 P.2d 407 (1967); Bustos v. People, 158 Colo. 451, 408 P.2d 64 (1965). In any event, the knife was admissible since a proper chain of custody was shown. The knife and sheath, after the seizure, wer......
-
Mathis v. People
...running. The Illinois court held that the gloves were sufficiently connected with the crime to be admissible. Moreover, in Bustos v. People, 158 Colo. 451, 408 P.2d 64, we held that a mask found near the scene of a robbery was sufficiently connected with the crime to be admissible, after a ......
-
People v. Watkins, 26359
...to the weight of the testimony rather than to its admissibility. Duran v. People, 162 Colo. 419, 427 P.2d 318 (1967); Bustos v. People, 158 Colo. 451, 408 P.2d 64 (1965); Bingham v. People, 157 Colo. 92, 401 P.2d 255 (1965); People v. Spinuzzi, 149 Colo. 391, 369 P.2d 427 (1962). Of course,......
-
The Use of Demonstrative Evidence in Criminal Cases
...P.2d 763 (1976). 13. Claxton v. People, supra, note 11. 14. People v. Penno, 188 Colo. 307, 534 P.2d 795 (1975). 15. Bustos v. People, 158 Colo. 451, 408 P.2d 64 (1965). 16. Potts v. People, 114 Colo. 253, 158 P.2d 739 (1945). 17. People v. Spinnuzi, 149 Colo. 391, 369 P.2d 427 (1962). 18. ......