Eby v. People
| Decision Date | 04 June 1917 |
| Docket Number | 8733. |
| Citation | 63 Colo. 276,165 P. 765 |
| Parties | EBY v. PEOPLE. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Error to District Court, Teller County; J. W. Sheafor, Judge.
Charles Eby was convicted of a violation of the age of consent statute, and he brings error. Reversed.
W. M Alter, of Victor, Barnett & Campbell, of Denver, and K. W Farr, of Victor, for plaintiff in error.
Fred Farrar, Atty. Gen., and Ralph E. C. Kerwin, Asst. Atty. Gen for the people.
The plaintiff in error, hereafter called the 'defendant,' was convicted of the violation of our age of consent statute, and sentenced to a term in the penitentiary. The act was alleged to have been committed on March 27, 1915, with one _____, an unmarried female under the age of 18, to wit, of the age of 15. The time and place when and where the crime is sought to be fixed and alleged to have been committed are not in dispute. The testimony of the girl involved is that, at the time and place alleged, the defendant did not commit any such crime. There is testimony of other witnesses to sundry facts and a purported confession of the defendant which (if properly admitted) all tend to show that the crime was committed at the time and place charged. Over defendant's objection, the girl was allowed to testify that a crime similar to the one charged had been committed by the defendant with her at a certain rooming house in Victor about a week prior to the commission of the crime charged in the information.
By instruction No. 7, the jury were told that evidence had been admitted of another similar act, etc., between the defendant and the girl about one week prior to the offense charged that this evidence was not admitted for the purpose of proving an offense against the defendant upon which he might be convicted, but was received only in corroboration and explanation of the evidence of the act charged; that defendant could not be tried for, nor convicted of, an offense not charged in the information; and that the offense charged is the one alleged to have been committed at the Gould house, March 27, 1915. This instruction correctly states the law in this jurisdiction. See Mitchell v. People, 24 Colo. 532, 52 P. 671; Bigcraft v. People, 30 Colo. 298, 70 P. 417. It is applicable to the crime for which the defendant was being tried and refers to the time and place when and where the girl testified that no such crime was committed. By instruction No. 8, the jury were told that in a prosecution of this character the people are not bound to prove the exact date as alleged in the information; that it is sufficient if it shall appear from the evidence, etc., that the defendant committed the crime charged in the information at any period of time...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Estorga
...information. 3 Albritton v. People, 157 Colo. 518, 403 P.2d 772 (1965); see Laycock v. People, supra. This court held in Eby v. People, 63 Colo. 276, 165 P. 765 (1917), that it was reversible error to give such an instruction if there was evidence of more than one transaction and there coul......
-
People v. Green, 81CA0311
...cases of People v. Estorga, 200 Colo. 78, 612 P.2d 520 (1980); Laycock v. People, 66 Colo. 441, 182 P. 880 (1919); and Eby v. People, 63 Colo. 276, 165 P. 765 (1917). Such reliance is In each of the cited cases where the use of an instruction like the one above was disapproved, it was becau......
-
Brown v. Denver Symphony Ass'n, 87CA1365
...misstated the law and were inconsistent, we reverse the judgment under the ADEA claim and remand for a new trial. See Eby v. People, 63 Colo. 276, 165 P. 765 (1917). II. On cross-appeal, DSA claims the trial court erred when it refused DSA's jury instruction referring to its right under the......