Edwards v. People, 23873
| Decision Date | 13 December 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 23873,23873 |
| Parties | William EDWARDS and Vincent Lopez, Plaintiffs in Error, v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Rollie R. Rogers, State Public Defender, J. D. MacFarlane, Chief Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, Allan Lipson, Asst. Public Defender, Brighton, for plaintiffs in error.
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., John P. Moore, Deputy Atty. Gen., Eugene C. Cavaliere, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for defendant in error.
Plaintiffs in error, William Edwards and Vincent Lopez, were defendants in the trial court and will be referred to as defendants herein. The People of the State of Colorado, defendant in error, will be referred to herein as the People.
This writ of error is directed to the trial court's refusal to grant each of three motions made by defendants' attorneys in the course of the trial. Specifically, those rulings now alleged to have been made in error were: (1) the trial court's failure to grant defendants' motion for continuance; (2) the trial court's refusal to grant defendants a hearing pursuant to defendants' motion to suppress, out of the jury's presence, prior to permitting the witness, Kern, to testify, and (3) the trial court's refusal to grant the defendant's motion to dismiss.
Defendants' first contention that the court erred in denying their motion for continuance is based on the failure of one Joe Pacheco to appear in court the morning of the trial as required by his bond. Pacheco was originally charged as a codefendant with Edwards and Lopez. His trial was severed from theirs. It was stated to the court that Pacheco had planned to plead guilty prior to the commencement of defendants' trial and then would offer his testimony in behalf of defendants. However, there was no showing made what evidence would be tendered or whether it would be material to the case. Counsel for defendants argued that because of Pacheco's failure to appear, they would be deprived of the opportunity to present witnesses in their behalf unless the action was continued until such time as Pacheco could be located. Defendants' argument is that the trial court's failure to grant defendants' motion for a continuance under these circumstances constitutes a violation of the Sixth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article II, § 16 of the Colorado constitution which guarantee an accused the right to have process to compel the attendance of witnesses in his behalf.
Defendants did not subpoena Pacheco. Nowhere in the record does it appear that these defendants were denied such process upon timely application for the same. Defendants' argument might have assumed far greater significance had they either availed themselves of the process of subpoenaing Pacheco or had they made timely application for subpoena to issue and be served upon Pacheco and then somehow been denied or frustrated in that effort.
Defendants contend that they were entitled to rely upon the fact that Pacheco was already under order of court to appear on the date of trial. The material point is that the bond was to compel his appearance to respond to charges made against him by the People, not to appear and testify in behalf of defendants. Defendants cite numerous cases supporting the proposition that fundamental due process includes the right to offer evidence in the defendants' behalf. With this proposition of law the Court does not take issue, but the Court cannot agree that failure to grant a continuance under the circumstances of this case constituted in fact a denial of that right.
Defendants' second contention arises out of the refusal of the trial judge to grant defense counsel the right to examine the witness, Kern, outside the presence of the jury regarding the circumstances surrounding an identification of defendant Edwards from a photograph exhibited to the witness Kern by the Aurora police department. Defendants' arguments are based upon United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967) and Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, 87 S.Ct. 1951, 18 L.Ed.2d 1178 (1967), but are inappropriate to the facts of this case. Here, prior to the commencement of the trial, counsel made a motion to suppress the entire testimony of the prosecution's principal witness, one Nellie Lorene Kern. Mrs. Kern was the manager and clerk of the store operated by Kern Co., Inc.,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. State
...by unlawfully stealing a thing of value of a named person. People v. Rubanowitz, 688 P.2d 231 (Colo.1984). See also Edwards v. People, 176 Colo. 478, 491 P.2d 566 (1971), holding that a theft indictment under the statute was not unconstitutional where it failed to include, as an essential e......
-
People v. Huguley
...of the occupants of the vehicle, one of the factors to be considered under Neil v. Biggers, supra. Compare Edwards v. People, 176 Colo. 478, 491 P.2d 566 (1971), and U. S. v. Milano, 443 F.2d 1022 (10th Cir. 1971). Indeed, there was no evidence at the Wade hearing, or even at trial, that Fl......
-
Howe v. People, 24650
...the itemized list of missing items furnished to defense counsel adequately narrowed that phrase. See our recent decision in Edwards v. People, Colo., 491 P.2d 566. As to the trial court's failure to require the district attorney to file a formal bill of particulars, it is well established b......
-
People v. MacFarland
...subsection of a prior theft statute (1967 Perm.Supp., C.R.S.1963, 40--5--2(3)) withstood constitutional attack in Edwards v. People, 176 Colo. 478, 491 P.2d 566 (1971). II. The defendant argues that he was denied equal protection of the law because the prosecution offered the Shields brothe......