Dustin v. People, 15799.
| Decision Date | 19 May 1947 |
| Docket Number | 15799. |
| Parties | DUSTIN v. PEOPLE. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; Osmer E. Smith Judge.
Charles A. Dustin was convicted of the crime against nature and of solicitation of unnatural carnal copulation, and he brings error.
Affirmed.
Ralph J. Cummings, of Denver, for plaintiff in error.
H Lawrence Hinkley, Atty. Gen., Duke W. Dunbar, Deputy Atty Gen., and James S. Henderson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.
Dustin was convicted of the crime against nature, and of solicitation of unnatural carnal copulation and seeks reversal here on the grounds that: (1) There was no proof of venue; and (2) the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts.
No challenge was interposed in the trial court as to venue, and no instruction given or requested thereon except the stock instruction reciting the charge in the information. Nonetheless, the proof of venue was essential and the burden of establishing it was on the prosecution. It is better practice to prove venue by direct evidence, and unfortunate that the time of courts must be taken up with argument and search of evidence on such issues when a single question propounded by the prosecutor at the trial would have avoided the issue. Venue may be proved by evidence of facts and circumstances from which it may be reasonably inferred. This is especially true where, as here, no direct issue as to venue was made at the trial except by plea of not guilty. The proper venue apparently was taken for granted, and there is no evidence to the contrary. In such a case, 'It is sufficient if there is evidence from which venue can be reasonably inferred, or if, from the facts and circumstances in evidence, the only rational conclusion which can be drawn is that the crime was committed in the county alleged, or the jury was justified in finding that the crime was perpetrated in the county wherein it is alleged to have been committed.' 23 C.J.S., Criminal Law, § 914, page 174.
The boy with whom the offenses were charged to have been committed testified that he met the defendant at the court-house square, and went with him to his room where the offenses were committed; also that he was working at the Boutwell Art Gallery and had frequent occasion to mail packages for his employer, which he posted in the office at the Denver Dry Goods Company's store,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tate v. People
...the only rational conclusion which can be drawn is that the crime was committed in the county alleged, * * *.'' Dustin v. People, 116 Colo. 433, 181 P.2d 457, 458. The error above pointed out was without appreciable prejudice to this defendant, because, if her statement is to be accepted as......
-
Baney v. People
...says: 'It is conceded that proof of venue is essential and that the burden of establishing it is upon the prosecution.' Dustin v. People, 116 Colo. 433, 181 P.2d 457. According to the evidence, defendant was in Denver on his way from his home in Salem, Oregon to New Orleans, La. He arrived ......
-
Abeyta v. People
...the only rational conclusion which can be drawn is that the crime was committed in the county alleged, * * *.''' Dustin v. People, 116 Colo. 433, 181 P.2d 457. In the Tate case, supra, we said: 'The error above pointed out [failure to instruct the jury on the matter of venue] was without ap......
-
Claxton v. People
...slight evidence is sufficient, and such evidence may be circumstantial. Abeyta v. People, 134 Colo. 441, 305 P.2d 1063; Dustin v. People, 116 Colo. 433, 181 P.2d 457. Venue in a kidnaping case may be 'either in the county in which the offense was committed or in any county through which the......