Hamilton v. People
| Decision Date | 04 June 1917 |
| Docket Number | 9042. |
| Citation | 63 Colo. 314,165 P. 761 |
| Parties | HAMILTON v. PEOPLE. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; William D Wright, Judge.
Noble O. Hamilton was convicted of having procured a criminal abortion, and he brings error. Affirmed.
C. A Prentice, of Denver (J. G. Powell, of Denver, of counsel) for plaintiff in error.
Fred Farrar, Former Atty. Gen., Leslie E. Hubbard, Atty. Gen., and Ralph E. C. Kerwin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the People.
Defendant, plaintiff in error, was convicted under an information charging him with having procured a criminal abortion of Ada Williams, by means of thrusting an instrument into her private parts with intent to procure a miscarriage, from which her death resulted.
The principal assignment of error upon which defendant relies for a reversal is that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict and judgment, and that no testimony was adduced upon which any reasonable, fair-minded jury could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of the crime charged. This has necessitated a careful review of all the evidence introduced on the trial, which discloses the following:
Thomas and Ada Williams were husband and wife, residing in Denver. Mrs. Williams having become pregnant, was very much disturbed over her condition owing to the fact that her mother, a resident of Nebraska, who was nearly 50 years old, had written that she was about to be confined, and, fearing that she would not survive the ordeal, very urgently requested Mrs. Williams to come to her; that Mrs. Williams thought she could not go, in her delicate condition, and was desirous of having a miscarriage. Some time in the latter part of January, 1916, she called on defendant Hamilton, who was a practicing physician, and discussed her condition with him. On Sunday, February 13, 1916, she, in company with her husband, again visited the doctor at his office, where she introduced her husband and said that they had come to talk over what she had discussed with him on her previous visit. The defendant asked her if she still wanted to do what they had talked about, and she replied that she did. After discussing her condition and symptoms, she inquired of the doctor if he thought he could help her out, and he replied that he could, and told her to return on the following day, Monday. Mr. Williams asked how much the bill would be, and defendant told him he 'charged $25 for confinement cases, and this would be the same.'
Mrs Williams returned to the doctor's office on Monday at about 9:40 o'clock in the morning. Of what occurred there on that occasion there is no direct evidence, excepting that of the defendant, who, while admitting that he inserted a speculum and made an examination of the woman's privates, and introduced a medicated tampon into her vagina, denied that he had done anything which would tend to bring about a miscarriage. On Tuesday morning Mrs. Williams was in bed when her...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Keller v. Miller
-
Duran v. People, 22217
...instead of that of the defendant. Such is the prerogative of the jury and does not warrant a reversal of the case. Hamilton v. People, 63 Colo. 314, 165 P. 761. The rule of law is no different because inconsistencies in the testimony relate to the identification of the defendant as a partic......
-
Johnson v. People, 23413
...support a jury's verdict, a reviewing court will not overturn the verdict. Davis v. People, 112 Colo. 452, 150 P.2d 67 and Hamilton v. People, 63 Colo. 314, 165 P. 761. Nor is there merit to the defendant's claim that the import of all of the main witness' testimony is discredited because o......
-
Snook v. People
...and adopted the People's evidence. Such is the prerogative of the jury and does not warrant a reversal of the case. Hamilton v. People, 63 Colo. 314, 165 P. 761. This court has repeatedly held, most recently in Dodge v. People, announced April 1, 1969, Colo., 452 P.2d 759, 'The evidence, wi......