Duncan v. People
| Decision Date | 30 May 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 24597,24597 |
| Parties | Herbert B. DUNCAN, Plaintiff in Error, v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Rollie R. Rogers, Colorado State Public Defender, J. D. MacFarlane, Chief Deputy State Public Defender, Kenneth J. Russell, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., John P. Moore, Deputy Atty. Gen., Aurel M. Kelly, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for defendant in error.
Herbert B. Duncan, III, was apprehended for a traffic offense near Castle Rock, Colorado, on January 10, 1969. In addition to his own identification he was found to have in his possession the wallet and identification papers of one John F. Pendergast, Jr., which wallet and papers, it was later determined, had been stolen from Pendergast's automobile in Chicago in the fall of 1968. Following the arrest, the Colorado State Patrol advised the Denver Police Department that a car on the Denver police pick-up list was in their possession and that an occupant of the car had a 'double identity.' A Denver policeman thereupon went to Castle Rock and returned Duncan to Denver.
He was thereafter charged with forgery of a check with intent to defraud the Denver U.S. National Bank, John Pendergast, Jr. and the First State Bank and Trust Company of Park Ridge, Illinois. This charge stemmed from the fact that a check written to 'Cash' for an amount of $250 had been deposited in Duncan's checking account in the Denver U.S. National Bank. The check was one of several blanks stolen from Pendergast's automobile, and was signed with the name 'John F. Pendergast.' At the trial, John Pendergast testified that he did not sign the check, nor did he authorize his signature to be placed upon it.
Duncan was convicted and now complains that the judgment of conviction must be reversed for the following reasons: (1) the trial court erred in finding a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to counsel and in admitting his extrajudicial statements to police concerning his dual identity; (2) the prosecution did not present evidence sufficient to support the conviction; and (3) it was error for the court to allow a prosecution witness to testify under the shopbook exception to the hearsay rule. We do not find merit in Duncan's arguments and accordingly we affirm the decision of the trial court.
Duncan first argues that it was error for the trial court to admit into evidence his statements to police that he was both Duncan and Pendergast. A corollary of his argument is that he was not apprised of the forgery charge against him and that he was therefore deceived by the police. These contentions are totally devoid of substance.
The record discloses that Duncan was twice advised of his constitutional rights. The first time was in the Douglas County Jail in Castle Rock at which time the police officer was preparing to return Duncan to Denver. The second time was at the Denver Police Building at which time Duncan signed an advisement form; including a separate signature under the section proclaiming: 'Knowing my rights and knowing what I am doing, I now wish to voluntarily talk to you.' After the first advisement, the Denver police officer, who was required to sign for Duncan's personal effects, inquired of Duncan's identity for the purpose of ascertaining what was included therein. At that time, Duncan claimed that both the Duncan and Pendergast identification papers were properly his. The police officer testified that he was confused by this statement and did not pursue the matter further.
We do not believe that Duncan's Miranda rights were violated in the verbal exchange that transpired as stated above. In passing on whether a statement is voluntary and whether the accused waived his right to counsel, the court must consider and examine the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, and also the conduct of the accused. Von Moltke v. Gillies, 332 U.S. 708, 68 S.Ct. 316, 92 L.Ed. 309; Reed v. People, 171 Colo. 421, 467 P.2d 809; Billings v. People, 171 Colo. 236, 466 P.2d 474; Commonwealth ex rel. McCray v. Rundle, 415 Pa. 65, 202 A.2d 303. In the present case, the court did this in an In camera hearing and determined that the statement was voluntary, and we think the court was correct. We point out that Duncan presented no evidence at the In camera hearing.
The fact that no advisement...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Spring
...58, 61, 521 P.2d 1250, 1252 (1974); People v. Weaver, 179 Colo. 331, 335, 500 P.2d 980, 982-83 (1972). See also Duncan v. People, 178 Colo. 314, 318, 497 P.2d 1029, 1031 (1972); People v. Herrera, 633 P.2d 1091, 1094 (Colo.App.), cert. denied (Colo.1981); Commonwealth v. Dixon, 475 Pa. 17, ......
-
People v. Cunefare
...that either affect financial or property matters or demonstrate legal efficacy in and of themselves. See, e.g., Duncan v. People, 178 Colo. 314, 497 P.2d 1029 (1972) (forged bank check); Gentry v. People, 166 Colo. 60, 441 P.2d 675 (1968) (false date on bank check); People v. McDonald, 53 C......
-
People v. Parks, 27916
...of the circumstances, including details of the interrogation and conduct and characteristics of the defendant. Duncan v. People, 178 Colo. 314, 497 P.2d 1029 (1972); Billings v. People, 171 Colo. 236, 466 P.2d 474 (1970). Although not necessarily determinative on the issue of voluntariness,......
-
People v. McCall
...and perceiving no plain error, we need not reach defendant's contentions in this regard. See Crim.P. 52; Duncan v. People,178 Colo. 314, 497 P.2d 1029 (1972). Moreover, defendant's reliance on Leech, supra, is misplaced. Where, as here, there is other evidence amply establishing the defenda......