Giacomozzi v. People
| Citation | 72 Colo. 13,209 P. 798 |
| Decision Date | 03 July 1922 |
| Docket Number | 9954. |
| Parties | GIACOMOZZI v. PEOPLE. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Colorado |
Rehearing Denied Oct. 2, 1922.
In Banc.
Error to District Court, San Miguel County; Thomas J. Black, Judge.
John Giacomozzi was convicted of murder, and he brings error.
Affirmed.
M. J. Galligan, of Pueblo, for plaintiff in error.
Victor E. Keyes, Atty. Gen., and Charles R. Conlee, Asst. Atty. Gen (L. W. Allen, of Telluride, of counsel), for the People.
Plaintiff in error (defendant below and hereinafter so designated) was convicted of murder in the first degree and sentenced to life imprisonment. To review that judgment he brings error.
This is a companion case to No. 9785, this day affirmed. 209 P. 796. Defendant is the Giacomozzi therein mentioned. He was informed against in the same way and tried for the same murders as was Morletti, and found guilty of each.
The principal contentions here made are: (1) That the informations should have been joint, instead of several; (2) that defendant's motion for a change of venue should have been granted; (3) that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict; (4) that the court committed reversible error in instructing the jury; (5) that the prosecution was guilty of reprehensible and prejudicial conduct.
1. Whether the district attorney should have charged these crimes in one information, or four, was a matter within his discretion. No authority to the contrary has been called to our attention.
2. Defendant moved for a change of venue on the grounds of prejudice of the inhabitants of San Miguel county. Numerous affidavits supporting and opposing this motion were filed. These go generally to the matter of prejudice and are in direct conflict. So far as the supporting affidavits are specific--i. e., charging pernicious activity on the part of officials, etc.--they are directly contradicted. The best test of the existence of such prejudice is disclosed by the examination of jurors. The record before us is silent on that subject. The granting or refusing of such a change rest generally in the sound discretion of the court. Power v. People, 17 Colo. 178 28 P. 1121. No abuse of that discretion here appears.
3. In the instant case defendant testified in his own behalf. His story of the tragedy corresponds in general with that of Morletti in No. 9785. Kochever also testified in thid case but it appears from the testimony of several of the people's witnesses that he had theretofore given an account of the occurrence at the mine materially different in numerous particulars from that given on the stand, and apparently the jurors gave him no credence. Otherwise the evidence in this case is substantially that given in No. 9785. What we there said on this point is here adopted. For a full understanding of the situation the two opinions should be read together. This verdict is as persuasive as a second verdict in the same case. It forecloses doubt as to the sufficiency of the evidence.
4. Twenty-two instructions were given the jury. The last of these relates only to the forms of verdict submitted. Assignment No. 18 alleges error in each of the others. With the exception of No. 16, they were all specifically approved by the defense. For that reason the objections now urged to them are entitled to no further notice. We have, however, examined each, and find no reversible error therein. Generally speaking, they are favorable to defendant.
Instruction No. 16 was objected to on the ground that it permitted argument to, or inference by, the jury that Giacomozzi was guilty because Morletti had been convicted; that it tended to confuse the jury, and was unwarranted by the evidence. The instruction reads:
'The court further instructs the jury as a matter of law that, if two or more persons are engaged...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Abshier v. People, 12558.
...... is one of the many matters wisely lodged in the discretion of. the trial court, and, in the absence of abuse, the order will. not be disturbed. Daugherty v. People, 78 Colo. 43, 45, 239. P. 14; Wilder v. People, 86 Colo. 35, 42, 278 P. 594, 65. A.L.R. R. 1260; Giacomozzi v. People, 72 Colo. 13, 209 P. 798; Turley v. People, 72 Colo. 518, 524, 216 P. 536. No. abuse of discretion appears here. . . The. fact that the deceased was a banker and citizen of high. standing in the community is not in itself a ground for. change of venue. That he was such ......
-
Corbett v. People
...what occurred upon voir dire examination of the prospective jurors. See Martz v. People, 114 Colo. 278, 162 P.2d 408, and Giacomozzi v. People, 72 Colo. 13, 209 P. 798. A review of the voir dire examination in the instant case convinces us that there was no such local prejudice as to necess......
-
Bacino v. People, 14456.
...... the same prior to the actual theft and, in effect, also would. permit his conviction for the other offenses proved but not. charged. The first several [104 Colo. 237] lines of the. instruction are in almost the precise words of one which we. approved in Giacomozzi v. People, 72 Colo. 13, 209. P. 798. The latter portion is no more than an attempt, likely. possible of more skillful expression, to elaborate upon what. is first said and apply that principle to the case at bar. Our careful study, however, fails to import to its language. the sinister meaning ......
-
Hopkins v. People
...... for change of place of trial is one of the many matters. wisely lodged in the discretion of the trial court, and, in. the absence of abuse, the order will not be disturbed. [Citing cases.] No abuse of discretion appears here.'. See, also, Giacomozzi v. People, 72 Colo. 13, 15,. 209 P. 798; Patton v. People, 74 Colo. 322, 325, 221. P. 1086; Wilder v. People, 86 Colo. 35, 42, 278 P. 594. . . Under. the authority of all of our decisions, there was no error. committed in denying the motion for a change of venue. . . 2. ......