Gomez v. People
| Decision Date | 28 September 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 20354,20354 |
| Citation | 395 P.2d 462,155 Colo. 507 |
| Parties | Joseph Carpio GOMEZ and Theodore Espinosa, Plaintiffs in Error, v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Forest E. Clark, Jr., Denver, for Joseph Carpio Gomez.
Rollie R. Rogers, Denver, for plaintiff in error Theodore Espinosa.
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Atty. Gen., John P. Moore, James W. Creamer, Jr., Asst. Attys. Gen., State of Colorado, Denver, for defendant in error.
Gomez and Espinosa were jointly charged with burglary and conspiracy to commit the same. To these charges each pled not guilty and trial by jury ensued. At the outset of the trial, upon motion by the defendants, the trial court entered a so-called 'exclusion order', directing that witnesses were to be excluded from the courtroom proper until such time as they were called to testify and 'cautioning each and every witness not to discuss the case among themselves * * * until the trial has been completed [and] more specifically, once you have testified you are not to reveal the nature of your testimony to any one until after the trial is over.'
One of the People's witnesses, Police Officer McGinnis, testified that he and a fellow officer were directed to go to a meat packing establishment known as the Farmer Pete Packing Company to investigate a possible burglary, the private burglary alarm system in that building having just been testimony in detail, it being sufficient to simply observe that the net effect thereof was to quite definitely 'tie' Gomez and Espinosa into the burglary of the packing company's premises.
Upon cross-examination McGinnis adlimited conversation with a fellow officer who was also a witness for the People limtied conversation with a fellow officer who was also a witness for the People concerning the physical layout of the burglarized premises, this conversation taking place in the corridor just outside the courtroom Upon being apprised of this fact the defendants moved to strike all of McGinnis' testimony or, in the alternative, moved for a mistrial on the ground that there had been a violation of the aforementioned exclusion order.
The trial court thereupon conducted an extensive inquiry to determine whether there had been any violation, intentional or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Gomez, 80SA494
...have remained within the trial court's sound discretion. E. g., Hampton v. People, 171 Colo. 153, 465 P.2d 394 (1970); Gomez v. People, 155 Colo. 507, 395 P.2d 462 (1964). We fail to perceive any abuse of discretion or, for that matter, any prejudice to the defendant by virtue of the limite......
-
Hampton v. People
...to testify, are all matters resting within the sound discretion of the court. Cruz v. People, 149 Colo. 187, 368 P.2d 774; Gomez v. People, 155 Colo. 507, 395 P.2d 462. The defendant has presented nothing to this court to show that the trial court abused its discretion and we can find no er......
-
People v. Watkins, 26359
...court.' People v. Romero, 182 Colo. 50, 511 P.2d 466 (1973); Hampton v. People, 171 Colo. 153, 465 P.2d 394 (1970); Gomez v. People, 155 Colo. 507, 395 P.2d 462 (1964); Cruz v. People, 149 Colo. 187, 368 P.2d 774 Under the circumstances of this case, we agree with the trial court's finding ......
-
People v. Romero
...to testify, are all matters resting within the sound discretion of the court. Cruz v. People, 149 Colo. 187, 368 P.2d 774; Gomez v. People, 155 Colo. 507, 395 P.2d 462. * * See also, Jorgensen v. People, Colo, 495 P.2d 1130. We find no abuse of the trial court's discretion in refusing to de......