Ferguson v. People, 15970.
| Decision Date | 05 April 1948 |
| Docket Number | 15970. |
| Citation | 118 Colo. 54,192 P.2d 523 |
| Parties | FERGUSON v. PEOPLE. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; Joseph E. Cook Judge.
J. Roy Ferguson, alias Roy Robinson, alias John Roy Ferguson, alias Dr. Roy Ferguson, alias Doc Ferguson, alias Roy Ferguson, was convicted of second-degree murder and he brings error.
Judgment affirmed.
Philip A. Rouse, 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.
Plaintiff in error, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was returned guilty of second degree murder, perpetrated by committing an abortion, and sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of twelve to twenty years. To review that judgment he prosecutes this writ, complaining only of certain of the trial court's rulings on the admission of evidence. This complaint he divides into ten assignments. For obvious reasons we do not so separately examine these.
It is unquestioned that Rachel Salazar, hereinafter referred to as Rachel, defendant's alleged victim, died as the result of an abortion, unlawful if committed by defendant. His identification, the ultimate issue, depends upon the correctness of the court's rulings admitting the testimony of two witnesses and one Exhibit.
Rachel was admitted to the hospital April 20. Two days later an operation was performed in an effort to save her life. April 27, Kingsley, a deputy district attorney interviewed her. June 25, she died and the following day an autopsy was performed.
The identification of defendant (who was not a physician) as the person who performed the abortion rests upon what transpired at Kingsley's interview with Rachel and the admission of her statements, in the light of surrounding facts and circumstances, as a dying declaration. In answer to proper inquiries Rachel said she knew she was going to die and had lost all hope of recovery; that on April 14 preceding she went to defendant's apartment in Denver for the purpose of having the operation and that defendant performed it. Just what he did she described in detail. Miss Rosin, a nurse, was present at the interview. She testified that Rachel was in a critical condition and otherwise corroborated Kingsley. The latter at the time made some written notes of the interview and this memorandum, Exhibit G, was admitted in evidence.
1--The general rule concerning dying declarations and their admissibility in evidence, as it existed prior to the adoption of our statute on the subject, was discussed at some length by this court and that authority throws considerable light on the question here presented.
Reppin v. People, 95 Colo. 192, 199, 34 P.2d 71. Three years after that decision was handed down our Legislature passed a special statute on the subject, somewhat modifying the general rule. Chap. 145, p. 557, Laws 1937. A casual examination of these authorities will disclose conformity with the established rule as modified by the statute. The testimony of these two witnesses was properly admitted.
2--Exhibit G appears to be a few scribbled notes on a printed form usually used by representatives of the district attorney's office in interviewing the reputed victims of unlawful abortions in cases when it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Mackey
...in response to a question does not, as defendant suggests, violate either subsection (2)(c) or (2)(d) of the statute. See Ferguson v. People, 118 Colo. 54, 192 P.2d 523. It is the admission of declarations resulting from persuasion or leading questions that the statute seeks to prohibit. Th......
-
ARTICLE 25 EVIDENCE GENERAL PROVISIONS
...operation, knowing at the time that death was inevitable, such statements would be admissible under this section. Ferguson v. People, 118 Colo. 54, 192 P.2d 523 (1948). In an abortion case where deceased was not conscious of approaching death, and where it was not a voluntary statement, but......
-
Hearsay Evidence: the New Federal Rules
...App. 332, 338, 129 P. 258 (1912); Wall v. Weaver, 145 Colo. 337, 341,358P.2d 1009(1961). 20. C.R.S. 1963 § 52-1-20; Ferguson v. People, 118 Colo. 54, 56, 192 P.2d 523 (1948). (c) 1974 The Colorado Lawyer and Colorado Bar Association. All Rights Reserved. All material from The Colorado Lawye......
-
The Other Rules of Evidence
...CRS § 13-25-119(A). 33. CRS § 13-25-119(B). 34. CRS § 13-25-119(C). 35. CRS § 13-25-119(D). 36. F.R.E. 804(B)(2). 37. Ferguson v. People, 192 P.2d 523 (Colo. 1948). 38. People v. Mackey, 521 P.2d 910 (Colo. 1974). 39. CRS § 13-25-120. 40. 50 R.S.C. § 1001--17. 41. CRS § 13-25-121. 42. CRS §......
-
Chapter 11 - § 11.3 • DYING DECLARATIONS
...defendant as the person who shot him). The declarant also need not die immediately after making such declaration. See Ferguson v. People, 192 P.2d 523 (Colo. 1948) (where victim identified doctor who performed illegal abortion and dying declaration was admissible even though victim did not ......