Henry v. People
| Citation | 209 P. 511,72 Colo. 5 |
| Decision Date | 11 September 1922 |
| Docket Number | 10426. |
| Parties | HENRY v. PEOPLE. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Colorado |
Department 3.
Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; Charles C Butler, Judge.
Joe Henry was convicted of obtaining property by fraudulent pretenses, and brings error.
Affirmed.
Irwin & Friend, of Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Victor E. Keyes, Atty. Gen., and Forrest C. Northcutt, Asst. Atty Gen., for the People.
The defendant was convicted of the crime of obtaining from the prosecuting witness, by fraudulent pretenses, an automobile of the value of $1,500 and $25 in money. The attorneys of defendant, who appear here, were not present at the trial in the district court, and, of course are not responsible for the state of the record before us.
The errors assigned and relied on for a reversal are: (1) Insufficiency of the evidence; (2) admitting the testimony of the people's witness Green; (3) admitting in evidence the certificate of a recorder of deeds; (4) receiving testimony of other similar offenses; (5) permitting the people to reopen its case after defendant's evidence was in.
In the light of the evidence in the record, there is no merit whatever in any of the assigned errors. But, if errors were committed, they cannot, under our practice, for lack of proper objections and exceptions, be rectified here. Some of the questions argued here were not raised at the trial, or submitted to the trial court for decision. Other rulings involved the exercise of judicial discretion, which was not abused. There was only one objection made by defendant's counsel during the entire trial, and that was an insufficient, general objection of the incompetency of the witness Green's admitted testimony. This general objection was not sufficient to authorize a review of the specific objection here made, even if such is its character that it was hearsay testimony. The testimony was both material and competent. But it is not hearsay, and is the only kind of evidence by which could be proved the nonexistence of the land, an issue at the trial, which the defendant gave in exchange for the automobile and money of the prosecuting witness. The evidence overwhelmingly sustains the verdict. The instructions were fair and not objected to. No prejudice could have resulted to the defendant by any of the rulings complained of. The defendant had a fair trial and is unquestionably guilty. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Koontz v. People
...... Casemaker. Note: Portions of this opinion were specifically rejected by. a later court in 467 P.2d 828. . . Rehearing. Denied Dec. 27, 1927. . . Error. to District Court, City and County of Denver; Henry Bray,. Judge. . . Ralph. Koontz was convicted, in consolidated trial of charges, under. separate informations, the one for taking indecent liberties. with the person of a male child and the other for the. infamous crime against nature, and he brings error. . . Affirmed. ......
-
Albert v. People, 12967.
......41. That they did understand the nature of the. offense charged there can be no doubt. Objections to. technical defects that do not tend to prejudice the. substantial rights of the defendant on the merits are not. encouraged. C. L. § 7103; Balfe v. People, 66 Colo. 94, 179 P. 137; Henry v. People, 72 Colo. 5, 209 P. 511; May v. People,. [7 P.2d 823] . 77 Colo. 432, 435, 236 P. 1022; Gizewski v. People,. 78 Colo. [90 Colo. 222] 123, 239 P. 1026; Fries v. People, 80 Colo. 430, 252 P. 341; Koontz v. People, 82 Colo. 589, 263 P. 19.'. . . In. Sarno v. People, 74 ......
-
Cliff v. People
...... the nature of the offense charged there can be no doubt. Objections to technical defects that do not tend to prejudice. the substantial [84 Colo. 259] rights of the defendant on the. merits are not encouraged. C. L. § 7103; Balfe v. People, 66. Colo. 94, 179 P. 137; Henry v. People, 72 Colo. 5, 209 P. 511; May v. People, 77 Colo. 432, 435, 236 P. 1022; Gizewski. v. People, 78 Colo. 123, 239 P. 1026; Fries v. People, 80. Colo. 430, 252 P. 341; Koontz v. People, 82 Colo. 489, 263 P. 19. . . 3. Error is said to have occurred in the admission and ......
-
Brown v. People
...circumstances revealed in the record, would constitute overruling a series of Colorado decisions, starting with the case of Henry v. People, 72 Colo. 5, 209 P. 511, decided in 1922. To such course of action we do not Other cases sustaining the oft-repeated rule that our function on review i......