Conferti v. People
| Decision Date | 06 July 1926 |
| Docket Number | 11618. |
| Citation | 79 Colo. 666,247 P. 1065 |
| Parties | CONFERTI v. PEOPLE. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Department 2.
Error to Pueblo County Court; Frank G. Mirick, Judge.
Louis Conferti was convicted of possessing intoxicating liquor, and he brings error and moves for a supersedeas.
Supersedeas denied, and judgment affirmed.
John A Martin and E. C. Holt, both of Pueblo, for plaintiff in error.
William L. Boatright, Atty. Gen., and Jean S. Breitenstein, Asst Atty. Gen., for the People.
Conferti was convicted of possession of intoxicating liquor, comes here on error, and moves for a supersedeas.
It is claimed: (1) That certain exhibits were improperly admitted in evidence; (2) that the evidence is insufficient to convict.
A soft drink place, No. 183 South Santa Fé avenue, Pueblo, was raided by the police, June 23, 1925, and about 52 gallons of whisky were found. The police found there bottles which belonged to defendant, canceled checks drawn by him, bills purporting to be for goods sold to him, some of them receipted, and other property of his. These were the exhibits to which the objection was directed. It is hardly necessary to say that they were competent, and relevant to the question whether defendant was in possession of the premises. That the documents were old goes to their weight, but not to their competency. If, as defendant claims, they were entirely immaterial, they were harmless and do not constitute prejudicial error.
2. Is the evidence sufficient? The whisky was found in a hidden barrel, which was ingeniously connected with a faucet by pipes cemented in the wall, with valves so contrived that any one who knew how could draw either whisky or water from the faucet. The defendant had constructed the building on his wife's land for the purpose of evading the prohibition laws. He had previously maintained a soft drink place at 179 Santa Fé avenue, close by, which he had, in the spring of 1925, leased or sold to one Veto, who, when the new building 183 was finished, took a written lease thereof from Mrs Conferti and moved in there. Defendant's safe, cash register, many papers, and other property were moved over to the new place. All the documents but one are dated before the moving. They were found in various places at 183, some in the cash register, some in the safe, some elsewhere. Defendant and Veto testified and there was other testimony that those bills for goods...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. People
...9 C.J. 1083. A satisfactory summary of the rule on circumstantial evidence in this jurisdiction is found in the case of Conferti v. People, 79 Colo. 666, 247 P. 1065. In that case the defendant took the stand to endeavor to explain his position, which he contended was consistent with innoce......
-
Corbett v. People
...to circumstantial evidence, i. e. sufficient evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, no more, no less. In Conferti v. People, 79 Colo. 666, 247 P. 1065, it was stated that to sustain a conviction on circumstantial '* * * [i]t is not true that circumstantial evidence must be s......
-
Keller v. People
...in the last analysis, to weigh it under appropriate instructions. See Militello v. People, 95 Colo. 519, 37 P.2d 527; Conferti v. People, 79 Colo. 666, 247 P. 1065; 20 Am.Jur., Evidence, § 273, p. As we said in Wilcox v. People, 152 Colo. ----, 380 P.2d 912, 914: 'More frequently than not, ......
-
People v. Florez, 24824
...See also Ziatz v. People, 171 Colo. 58, 465 P.2d 406 (1970), Gonzales v. People, 128 Colo. 522, 264 P.2d 508 (1954), Conferti v. People, 79 Colo. 666, 247 P. 1065 (1926), LaConte v. United States, 330 F.2d 700 (10th Cir. 'Defendant's unrebutted explanation that he was carrying the bottles f......