Eder v. People
| Decision Date | 03 July 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 24677,24677 |
| Citation | 498 P.2d 945,179 Colo. 122 |
| Parties | Martin James EDER and Harris Wilson Green, Plaintiffs in Error, v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Robert Bruce Miller, Boulder, for plaintiff in error, Martin James eder.
Zook, Love & Torke, David R. Torke, Boulder, for plaintiff in error, Harris Wilson Green.
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., John P. Moore, Deputy Atty. Gen., Michael T. Haley, Jack E. Hanthorn, Asst. Attys. Gen., Denver, for defendant in error.
The defendant Eder and Green were convicted in a jury trial of possession of a narcotic drug. We reverse as to Green for the court's failure to grant a severance and as to Eder for the court's refusal to permit his counsel to cross-examine a witness called by Green.
An apartment in Boulder, Colorado was searched under a search warrant and a box containing hashish was seized. The apartment consisted of a living room, a kitchen and two bedrooms, each bedroom containing two beds. The defendants Eder and Green occupied one bedroom, and a Phil Chang and Robert Powell occupied the other. Chang pled guilty to use of marijuana and the possession charges against him were dismissed. Powell was not charged.
The box containing the hashish was found on a shelf in the closet of the bedroom occupied by Eder and Green. A wallet containing identification pertaining to Eder was found either on top of or underneath this box.
It was the theory of each defendant that the hashish belonged not to him, but to the other defendant. Prior to and during the trial each defendant asked for severance of the trial, all of which motions were denied. When the People rested and defendants' counsel stated that Green would take the stand and Eder would not, Green's attorney requested that he be permitted to comment in argument as to Eder's silence or that there be a severance. The court dinied both requests.
Generally, a trial court's discretion in granting or denying a severance is broad, and its action will be upheld in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion. However, upon consideration of the following factors, we have been obliged to conclude that the joint prosecution may have prevented Green from having a fair trial. (1) The defenses of the defendants were antagonistic. Perhaps the fact of antagonistic defenses may not always demand a severance, but certainly this justifies separate trials in many instances. See 54 A.L.R.2d 858 et seq. (2) Obviously, with Eder's guilt or innocence being weighed by the jury along with Green's, Green's attorney could not comment on Eder's silence, for to do so would have violated Eder's Fifth Amendment rights. But there is an element of unfairness in denying Green any favorable inference to be drawn from Eder's silence. DeLuna v. United States, 308 F.2d 140 and 324 F.2d 375 (5th Cir., 1962 and 1963). (3) It is entirely conceivable that in the case of a severance and a prior trial of Eder, he might testify for Green in Green's subsequent trial. United States v. Echeles, 352 F.2d 892 (7th Cir., 1965). (4) There is also the factor that circumstantial evidence against Eder appears to be stronger than that against Green by reason of the common location of the hashish and what appeared to be Eder's wallet. Eder's position here is comparable to that of Petty in Petty and Smith v. People, 167 Colo. 240, 447 P.2d 217 (1968).
Any single one of the factors outlined above might not make denial of the severance an abuse of discretion. Combining all of them, however, it cannot be said that Green had a completely fair trial and, therefore, we must reverse for a new, separate trial.
Green called Powell, who testified that Green had been at the apartment only infrequently during the two weeks prior to the search and that none but Eder and Green used the closet to their bedroom. The trial court refused to permit Eder's counsel to cross-examine Powell, ruling that Powell had not given any testimony that directly related to Eder.
Under Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 85 S.Ct. 1065, 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965), the Sixth Amendment right of Eder to confront the witnesses against him, made obligatory upon the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, was violated when the court ruled that counsel for Eder could not cross-examine Powell. The Attorney General urges that the trial court was correct in its proposition that there is no right of cross-examination if the witness...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Horne
...1 People v. Warren, 196 Colo. 75, 582 P.2d 663 (1978); see People v. Johnson, 192 Colo. 483, 560 P.2d 465 (1977); Eder v. People, 179 Colo. 122, 498 P.2d 945 (1972). The purpose of a severance is to promote a fair determination of the guilt or innocence of one or more defendants. People v. ......
-
State v. Hutchison
...(11th Cir.1985), reh'g den, 772 F.2d 918, cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1064, 106 S.Ct. 815, 88 L.Ed.2d 789 (1986); Eder v. People, 179 Colo. 122, 498 P.2d 945, 946 (1972); State v. Nieves, 13 Conn.App. 60, 534 A.2d 1231, 1232-1233 (1987), cert. denied, 207 Conn. 802, 540 A.2d 74 (1988); United St......
-
Thomas v. United States
...robbery and murder of William Michael Reed. James v. United States, 514 A.2d 793 (D.C. 1986), citing with approval, Eder v. People, 179 Colo. 122, 498 P.2d 945, 946-47 (1972) (negative inferences drawn from defendant's witness' testimony may incriminate codefendant and require opportunity t......
-
Peltz v. People
...of the term. Pappadiakis never accused Peltz of committing the crime. This case therefore is distinguishable from Eder v. People, 179 Colo. 122, 124, 498 P.2d 945, 946 (1972), where, in a prosecution for possession of narcotics, "[i]t was the theory of each defendant that the hashish belong......
-
Section 16 CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS - RIGHTS OF DEFENDANT.
...apartment for two weeks before the search but that the two defendants shared the closet where the hashish was discovered. Eder v. People, 179 Colo. 122, 498 P.2d 945 (1972). There was no deprivation of constitutional rights in allowing witnesses to be impeached by their previous statements ......
-
Section 18 CRIMES - EVIDENCE AGAINST ONE'S SELF-JEOPARDY.
...cannot comment on the other defendant's silence, for to do so would violate the silent defendant's constitutional rights. Eder v. People, 179 Colo. 122, 498 P.2d 945 (1972). Where prosecution requests in front of jury that defendant participate in physical demonstration to illustrate the co......
-
Defending Colorado Drug Cases
...and the Colorado Supreme Court has recently articulated some guidelines for exercising this discretion in drug cases. In Eder v. People, 498 P.2d 945 (Colo. 1972), the Court held that it was an abuse of discretion to refuse a severance where the defenses of the defendants were antagonistic,......