Byram v. People

• Decision Date: 06 February 1911
• Citation: 113 P. 528,49 Colo. 533
• Parties: BYRAM et al. v. PEOPLE.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

113 P. 528

49 Colo. 533

BYRAM et al. v. PEOPLE.

Supreme Court of Colorado

February 6, 1911

Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; Harry C Riddle, Judge.

William Byram and another were convicted of murder, and bring error. Affirmed.

William Young, O. N. Hilton, and Caesar A Roberts, for plaintiffs in error.

John T Barnett, Atty. Gen. (George H. Thorne, of counsel), for the People.

HILL J.

The plaintiffs in error were convicted of murder in the second degree, and from a sentence accordingly have brought the case here for review upon error.

Counsel's main contention is that the corpus delicti was not proved and they set forth, with great pains and at considerable length, parts of the evidence which they contend establish that fact. We concede that the corpus delicti in all cases of homicide must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, either by direct or circumstantial evidence; where there is no sufficient proof of crime, there can be no legal criminality. McBride v. People, 5 Colo.App. 91, 37 P. 953.

Counsel lay down the rule that the evidence must be sufficient to establish that the death of the deceased was produced by the criminal act of some person and was not the result of accident or natural causes. We agree that this must be established by evidence to the satisfaction of the jury, beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence was circumstantial, but conflicting to a slight extent only; and it would be a useless expenditure of time and labor to state its substance in detail in order to thereby present the facts upon which the jury were justified in arriving at their verdict. It is sufficient to say that, after a careful reading of the entire record, we feel confident in holding that the evidence is sufficient to justify the verdict, and that the corpus delicti was sufficiently proven to bring it within the rules of any of the authorities cited. To our minds, it is sufficient to justify the finding necessary to constitute the two component parts challenged: (1) Death as the result; (2) the criminal agency of another as a means. The question of the deceased coming to her death from accident or natural causes was substantially covered by the instructions to the jury, and there is competent evidence to sustain their finding on this question.

Error is also claimed in the admission of the alleged confessions by the defendants. An examination of the record fails to disclose that either of them made a confession. The evidence complained of was that of the officers of the city of Denver in testifying to statements made to them by the defendants that they were at a certain 'other' place when the crime was committed. This is in no sense a confession. 3 Ency. of Evidence, 298. Also, the defendants took the stand at the trial and repeated the same story as made to the officers. Even if these statements came within the rule covering confessions, there was no error committed in their admission. After their arrest, the defendants were separately interrogated as to their whereabouts during the night of the alleged assault. They both answered that at about 11:30 that night they went to a camp wagon located on a vacant lot near the corner of Twenty-First and Lawrence streets, where they slept until after daylight the next morning. The place of the homicide was at 1919 Lawrence street about two blocks from this vacant lot.

At the trial counsel objected to the admission in evidence of this conversation between the defendants and the officers, the jury were withdrawn, and counsel were permitted to examine the officials...