Gottfried v. People, 21330
| Decision Date | 06 December 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 21330,21330 |
| Citation | 158 Colo. 510,408 P.2d 431 |
| Parties | William D. GOTTFRIED, Plaintiff in Error, v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Downing & Knowlton, Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Atty. Gen., Aurel M. Kelly, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for defendant in error.
An information in two counts was filed in the district court of the City and County of Denver in which plaintiff in error, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, and one Henry B. Williams, were accused of the crimes of burglary and conspiracy to commit that offense.
The defendant Gottfried entered a plea of not guilty to each count. The issues as to him were tried to a jury which returned a verdict of not guilty on the charge of burglary, and 'Guilty of Conspiracy to Commit Burglary as charged in the Second Count of the Information herein.' The information was filed on January 2, 1963, and the date of the alleged offense was December 23, 1962. On January 22, 1963, counsel who had been appointed to represent the defendant filed a 'Motion to Dismiss' and as grounds therefor alleged:
'1. Defendant is being deprived of his liberty in violation of the Constitutions of the United States of America and of the State of Colorado.
'2. Rule 5(a)(2) of the Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure states:
"Any person making an arrest without a warrant shall take the arrested person within a reasonable time before the nearest available justice of the peace."
'3. Defendant was arrested on December 23, 1962, without a warrant, and placed in custody in Denver City Jail.
'4. Although a justice of the peace is located in the same building with the City Jail and is maintained in said building for the purpose of compliance by arresting authorities with Rule 5(a)(2), defendant was not taken before said justice of the peace until five days following his arrest, December 23, 1962, at approximately 8:30 A.M. Such five day period constitutes an unreasonable delay.
'5. Rule 5(a)(2) further states:
"When a person thus arrested is taken before a justice of the peace, a complaint shall be filed forthwith in the county where the crime allegedly was committed, and a copy of the complaint shall be given to the accused person within a reasonable time."
'6. Defendant appeared, as aforesaid, before a justice of the peace, at 8:30 A.M. December 26, 1962, and was advised that a complaint would be filed against him forthwith.
'7. No complaint was filed against the defendant until 9:56 A.M. on January 2, 1963.
'8. The time for the filing of a valid complaint and information against the defendant expired on December 28, 1962, when such complaint and information were not filed forthwith, as required by Rule 5(a)(2).
This motion was denied on February 18, 1963. The trial began on August 20, 1963, and was concluded the following day with the result hereinabove indicated. In due course judgment entered on the verdict of the jury and the defendant was sentenced to a term in the state penitentiary of not less than seven nor more than ten years.
Counsel presents his argument for reversal of the judgment under three captions as follows:
A. 'The trial court erred in failing to dismiss the charges against the defendant pursuant to the motion filed on January 22, 1963.
B. 'The trial court erred in failing to rule in favor of the defendant on his motion for a directed verdict of not guilty on both counts at the conclusion of the People's case, at the conclusion of the defendant's case, and on the motion for a new trial or for judgment of not guilty notwithstanding the verdict.
C. 'The court erred in giving Instruction No. 10 concerning the possession of stolen property, and refusing to instruct the jury in accordance with the defendant's Instruction No. 1.'
Defendant's principal grievances are that he was not taken before the justice of the peace within a reasonable time and that a complaint against him was not filed forthwith. These contentions were answered by this court in People v. Griffith, 130 Colo. 475, 276 P.2d 559, where it was said:
'* * * The motion of counsel for defendant for dismissal upon the ground of lack of jurisdiction over his person is wholly without support in the record, even upon the theory which they argue in their brief, namely, that defendant was arrested without a warrant, and was not taken immediately before a 'magistrate.' Assuming for the purpose of argument that such a showing had been made of record, it would not follow that the trial court was without jurisdiction over the person of defendant. The applicable rule stated in 22 C.J.S., Criminal Law, § 144, page 236, is, inter alia: 'As a general rule, however, the jurisdiction of the court in which an information or indictment is found is not impaired by the manner in which accused is brought before it; courts of criminal jurisdiction not being required to inquire as to how the prisoner came within reach of their mandates, the presence of accused in the court on a proper charge being sufficient to confer...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Beeman
...on the record before us, we cannot say that the defendant has sustained his burden of showing reversible error. See Gottfried v. People, 158 Colo. 510, 408 P.2d 431; Bueno v. People, 158 Colo. 338, 406 P.2d Nor may the defendant derive comfort from the trial court's failure to admonish the ......
-
People v. Vigil
...voir dire, the defendant has the burden of showing prejudice. Segura v. People, 159 Colo. 371, 412 P.2d 227 (1966); Gottfried v. People, 158 Colo. 510, 408 P.2d 431 (1965); Madrid v. People, 148 Colo. 149, 365 P.2d 39 As part of his allegation of prejudice, the defendant argues that the dis......
-
State v. Hicks
...See State v. Garton, 2 Kan.App.2d 709, 586 P.2d 1386 (1978); Hinse v. Burns, 108 N.H. 58, 226 A.2d 865 (1967); Gottfried v. People, 158 Colo. 510, 408 P.2d 431 (1965). When circumstances are such that the accused has been released from custody, or the delay in filing a complaint is not leng......
-
McCune v. People
...the defendant made no showing of continuity or relevance in the record. The burden was on the defendant to do so. Gottfried v. People, 158 Colo. 510, 408 P.2d 431 (1965). VII. As to the defendant's last contention of error regarding a lack of clarity in the instruction and in the forms of v......