Goodwin v. District Court In and For Tenth Judicial Dist., 28069

Decision Date28 August 1978
Docket NumberNo. 28069,28069
Citation196 Colo. 246,586 P.2d 2
PartiesRichard F. GOODWIN, Petitioner, v. The DISTRICT COURT, IN AND FOR the TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, State of Colorado, and the Honorable Richard Conour, Specially appointed as a District Judge inand for the Tenth Judicial District, State of Colorado, Respondents.
CourtColorado Supreme Court

James H. Frasher, Jr., R. D. Jorgensen, Pueblo, for petitioner.

J. E. Losavio, Jr., Dist. Atty., Warren T. Marshall, Deputy Dist. Atty., Pueblo, for respondents.

ERICKSON, Justice.

Richard F. Goodwin, the petitioner, was denied bail in a capital case. He brought an original proceeding in the nature of mandamus in this court. We issued a rule to show cause to the respondent district court and now discharge the rule.

Petitioner is charged with the crimes of first-degree murder (Section 18-3-102, C.R.S. 1973 (1976 Supp.) ) and conspiracy to commit first-degree murder (Section 18-2-201, C.R.S. 1973). Both crimes are capital offenses. Section 16-11-103, C.R.S. 1973 (1976 Supp.). The charges arise out of allegations that Goodwin hired Ralph Force to kill Tom Turcotte, the victim. Force has entered a plea of guilty to charges of murder and conspiracy to commit murder based on the same incident.

All persons shall be bailable by sufficient sureties except for capital cases, when the proof is evident or the presumption great." Colo. Const., Art. II, Sec. 19. This court has interpreted that mandate to mean that "when the proof is evident or the presumption great, denial of bail is mandatory." People v. District Court, 187 Colo. 164, 166, 529 P.2d 1335, 1336 (1974). Moreover, "bail should be denied when the circumstances disclosed indicate a fair likelihood that the defendant is in danger of a jury verdict of first degree murder." Gladney v. District Court, 188 Colo. 365, 369-70, 535 P.2d 190, 191 (1975). The People bear the burden of proving that the proof is evident and the presumption great. The fact that charges have been made that the offense allegedly committed by the defendant is a capital offense which meets the constitutional standard for denial of bail does not satisfy the prosecution's burden. Shanks v. District Court, 153 Colo. 332, 385 P.2d 990 (1963).

Petitioner has had two hearings before two different judges on his motions for release on bond. The sole question presented by this case is whether the record made at the first hearing, supplemented by that made at the second hearing, establishes that the proof is evident and the presumption great.

At the conclusion of the first hearing, the trial court found that the proof was evident and the presumption great that Goodwin would be convicted of a capital...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • People v. Johnson
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • November 15, 1983
    ...(1980). This ruling that there was interrogation is supported by the record and will not be reversed on appeal. 5 Goodwin v. District Court, 196 Colo. 246, 586 P.2d 2 (1978); People v. Parks, 195 Colo. 344, 579 P.2d 76 (1978); People v. Ellis, III, 189 Colo. 242, 539 P.2d 132 In his brief, ......
  • People v. Bueno, 78-1084
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • March 26, 1981
    ...court's factual determinations are supported by evidence in the record and will not be disturbed on review. See Goodwin v. District Court, 196 Colo. 246, 586 P.2d 2 (1978). Defendant also contends that the trial court erred in admitting the in-court identifications of the two other eyewitne......
  • People v. Maestas, 28066
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • August 28, 1978
    ... ... No. 28066 ... Supreme Court" of Colorado, En Banc ... Aug. 28, 1978 ...   \xC2"      Luis A. Lopez, Dist. Atty., Garrett Sheldon, Deputy Dist. Atty., ... to section 16-12-102, C.R.S.1973, the district attorney sought review of a judgment of acquittal ... ...
  • People v. Duncan
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • March 31, 1988
    ...procedure used was not unduly suggestive. Under such circumstances, that determination is binding. See Goodwin v. District Court, 196 Colo. 246, 586 P.2d 2 (1978). II Defendant next argues that the trial court committed reversible error in admitting evidence concerning the attempted robbery......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT