Castner v. People
| Decision Date | 06 October 1919 |
| Docket Number | 9375. |
| Citation | 67 Colo. 327,184 P. 387 |
| Parties | CASTNER et al. v. PEOPLE. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Department 1.
Error to District Court, Garfield County; John T. Shumate, Judge.
Louis Castner and Louis Crofut were convicted of receiving stolen goods, and they bring error. Affirmed.
October 29, 1917, plaintiffs in error (defendants below and hereinafter so designated) were jointly informed against for receiving stolen goods of the value of $255.36. The information was in four counts, of which the second was dismissed by the court. The first count alleged ownership of the goods in question in the J. S. Brown Mercantile Company the third, in J. C. Gudgel; the fourth, in Garfield county. The information did not name any person from whom the goods were received.
Defendants had owned the C. & C. market in Glenwood Springs. This they later disposed of, and went into the junk business. Near the town of Glenwood Springs was a state road camp, where convicts were engaged in highway construction. J. C. Gudgel was superintendent of the road camp; W. G. McDonald, a prisoner, was commissary man; C.J. Taylor, a former convict resided in the vicinity; Joseph Nagin was a junk dealer residing in Leadville.
It was the theory of the people that McDonald, Taylor, and defendants were working under an arrangement by which McDonald, in his capacity as commissary man, but with felonious intent, procured from the agent of the railway goods shipped to the road camp, and delivered them to Taylor or defendants; that most of the goods so received by Taylor were by him delivered to defendants, who in turn disposed of them, in part at least, through Nagin; that defendants received one half the net proceeds, and McDonald and Taylor the other half; that the goods in question came from the J S. Brown Mercantile Company; that certain of the goods found by the sheriff (under search warrant) in the homes of defendants and in their storeroom, and produced in court were a portion of this consignment.
The offense is alleged to have been committed on or about September 9, 1917. The cause was tried to a jury which returned a verdict, December 6, 1917, finding the defendants guilty as charged in the first count of the information.
John L. Noonan, of Glenwood Springs, for plaintiffs in error.
Leslie E. Hubbard, Atty. Gen. (J. W. Kelley, of Denver, of counsel), for the People.
BURKE, J. (after stating the facts as above).
The principal contentions of defendants, and the only ones necessary for our consideration, are:
1. That the information did not state the name of the person from whom the goods were received by defendants, and their motion, at the close of the people's evidence, for a directed verdict for his omission, should have been sustained.
The ruling of the trial court to the contrary is supported by the great weight of authority, and is firmly established in this jurisdiction. 34 Cyc. 521; Curl v. People, 53 Colo. 578, 582, 127 P. 951, Ann.Cas. 1914B, 171.
2. That the verdict is not supported by the evidence.
On the contrary, we are of the opinion that the evidence is ample to support, in every particular, the theory of the prosecution concerning the theft, handling, and disposition of the goods in question.
3. That, as the jury was instructed, in the event it found defendants guilty on the first count of the information, it should find them not guilty on the third and fourth counts, and as said third and fourth counts were not mentioned in the verdict, its reception by the court was error.
When the court directs a verdict of not guilty as to one count, such direction is equal to acquittal, and will support a plea of former jeopardy. Roland v. People, 23 Colo. 283, 47 P. 269.
While the court should have required the verdict to be so amended as to comply with the instructions, defendants have sustained no injury by the failure, and cannot be heard to complain. If the record does not show an acquittal on the third and fourth counts, that is the omission of a mere formality, which will be corrected on motion.
4. That defendants' written offer--to show, as tending to discredit the witness McDonald, that while he was in jail in El Paso county on a felony...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Serravo
...e.g., Krutka v. Spinuzzi [153 Colo. 115, 384 P.2d 928 (1963) ]; Menton v. Johns, [151 Colo. 276, 377 P.2d 104 (1962) ]; Castner v. People, 67 Colo. 327, 184 P. 387 (1919); Roland v. People, 23 Colo. 283, 47 P. 269 (1896). A retrial on a criminal accusation is prohibited whenever the first t......
-
People v. Quintana
...an acquittal significant to the double jeopardy issue. See, e. g., Krutka v. Spinuzzi, supra; Menton v. Johns, supra; Castner v. People, 67 Colo. 327, 184 P. 387 (1919); Roland v. People, 23 Colo. 283, 47 P. 269 (1896). A retrial on a criminal accusation is prohibited whenever the first tri......
-
Clews v. People
...would sustain the material allegation of possession. Repetition of instructions under various forms should be discouraged. Castner v. People, 67 Colo. 327, 184 P. 387. An instruction concerning reasonable doubt or degree of proof ordinarily need not be repeated as a part of another instruct......
-
Krutka v. Spinuzzi
...The foregoing test was approved in so many words by this Court in Davidson v. People, 64 Colo. 281, 170 P. 962. In Castner v. People, 67 Colo. 327, 184 P. 387 it was stated that when a court directs a verdict of not guilty, such directed verdict is equivalent to an acquittal and 'will suppo......