Dennison v. People
| Decision Date | 01 July 1918 |
| Docket Number | 9158. |
| Parties | DENNISON v. PEOPLE. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Department 1. Error to District Court, Pueblo County; C. S. Essex Judge.
JamesDennison alias Jimmie Hogan, was convicted of burglary, and brings error. Affirmed.
D. M Campbell and S.D. Brosius, both of Pueblo, for plaintiff in error.
Leslie E. Hubbard, Atty. Gen., and Irving Van Bradt, Charles Roach, and Clara Ruth Mozzor, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State.
The plaintiff in error was convicted of burglary, and brings error.
It is urged, first, that the evidence does not sustain the verdict of guilty, and in support of that contention counsel point out that the principal witness, who identified the defendant as the person he had seen running into the building where the stolen articles were found, had, according to one of defendant's witnesses, admitted on the preliminary hearing that he could not identify him. This evidence, if accepted by the jury as true, of course, went to the jury as bearing upon the credibility of the state's witness, and we cannot say that the jury was wrong in its determination on that question. There being evidence to support the verdict, we cannot consider the question of its weight.
It is further contended that the court erred in permitting the district attorney, on the cross-examination of defendant, 'to go further in impeachment of the defendant than to inquire of him if he had not been convicted of a felony.' The statute provides that:
'The conviction of any person for any crime may be shown for the purpose of affecting the credibility of such witness.' Section 7266, R. S. 1908.
Counsel object to the question upon the ground that the offense of which defendant had been convicted was a mere misdemeanor, and therefore not within the statute, but the record fails to show the grade of the offense.
Defendant was asked, in the very language of the statute, whether he had been convicted of a crime. The objection to it was properly overruled.
Nor was there error in permitting the state to cross-examine defendant as to his prior conviction, when he failed to give a direct answer to the question above mentioned. His equivocation made it proper to ask additional questions to bring out the fact of his conviction. Johns v. State, 88 Neb. 146, 129 N.W. 247.
'The inquiry is not confined to the mere fact of conviction of some crime, but the nature or name of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Routa v. People
... ... question, his testimony subject to the ordinary rules of ... evidence and to impeachment, and he may be cross-examined in ... the same manner and to the same extent as any other witness ... in the trial. Tarling v. People, 69 Colo. 477, 194 ... P. 939, note 25 A.L.R. 340; Dennison v. People, 65 ... Colo. 15, 174 P. 595; Hendricks v. People, 78 Colo ... 264, 241 P. 734; Davis v. People, 77 Colo. 546, 238 ... P. 25; Diveely v. People, 74 Colo. 268, 220 P. 991, ... cited in note, 58 A.L.R. 87; Dockerty v. People, 96 ... Colo. 338, 351, 44 P.2d 1013 ... ...
-
People v. Yeager, 25607
...P. 734 (1925); Dively v. People, 74 Colo. 268, 220 P. 991 (1923); Tarling v. People, 69 Colo. 477, 194 P. 939 (1921); Dennison v. People, 65 Colo. 15, 174 P. 595 (1918); and Solander v. People, 2 Colo. 48 The practice of leaving to the attorney representing the adverse party the discretion ......
-
Eachus v. People
...to the single question, but a reasonable latitude is permitted, especially where, as here, the witness equivocates.' In Dennison v. People, 65 Colo. 15, 174 P. 595, citing with approval the case of Le Master v. People, 54 Colo. 416, 131 P. 269, we held that the extent of such examination in......
-
People v. Lewis, 25124
...in cross-examination, ask a witness if he has been convicted of a felony, Hawkins v. People, 161 Colo. 556, 423 P.2d 581; Dennison v. People, 65 Colo. 15, 174 P. 595, nevertheless, he must ask the question in good faith. Richardson v. United States, 150 F.2d 58 (6th Cir.); People v. Perez, ......
-
ARTICLE 90 WITNESSES
...evidence of conviction. Questions as to indictment, arrest, commission of offenses, or immoral acts are not permitted. Dennison v. People, 65 Colo. 15, 174 P. 595 (1918); Tarling v. People, 69 Colo. 477, 194 P. 939 (1921); Hoffman v. People, 72 Colo. 552, 212 P. 848 (1923); Hendricks v. Peo......