Holm v. People
| Decision Date | 06 November 1922 |
| Docket Number | 10459. |
| Citation | 210 P. 698,72 Colo. 257 |
| Parties | HOLM v. PEOPLE. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Dec. 4, 1922.
Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; Charles C Butler, Judge.
Edwin Holm was found guilty of taking indecent liberties with a female child, and he brings error. On defendant's application for supersedeas.
Supersedeas denied, and judgment affirmed.
Joel E Stone and William H. Gabbert, both of Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Victor E. Keyes, Atty. Gen., and Charles R. Conlee, Asst. Atty Gen., for the People.
Plaintiff in error (hereinafter referred to as defendant) was found guilty of taking indecent liberties with a female child, and sentenced to the state penitentiary for a term of five to eight years. To review that judgment he brings error, and the cause is now before us on his application for a supersedeas.
It is first urged that the prosecuting witness, who was but seven years of age, was, by reason of her immaturity, incompetent to testify, and that the admission of her evidence was an abuse of discretion. It is admitted that this question is ordinarily one for the trial court. Victor v. Smilanich, 54 Colo. 479, 483, 131 P. 392. But it is urged in the instant case that prior to her examination the trial judge expressed a boudbt as to her knowledge of the nature of an oath, that she was not thereafter further examined as to her competency, and that no further finding was made thereon. While it is true that the court's admission of her testimony outweighs the doubt expressed when she was first called to the witness stand, the condition of the record is such as to require no further analysis of the question. Defendant's counsel made no objection to her testimony, did not move to strike it, nor otherwise during the trial question her qualification. Unless objection is made and exception saved to the admission of testimony, alleged errors based thereon will be considered waived. Christ v. People, 3 Colo. 394; Holland v. People, 30 Colo. 94, 98; 69 P. 519.
An objection to the admission or exclusion of evidence on the ground of the competency of a witness must be made in the trial court. Otherwise it will not be considered on review. Robinson v. Marino, 3 Wash. 434, 28 P. 752, 28 Am.St.Rep. 50; Exposita v. United Railroads, 42 Cal.App. 320, 183 P. 576; Muskogee E. T. Co. v. McIntire, 37 Okl. 684, 133 P. 213, L.R.A. 1916C, 351.
Defendant tendered the following instruction:
'You are instructed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Berger v. People
...here interposed to Robert's testimony have been made and overruled in City of Victor v. Smilanich, 54 Colo. 479, 131 P. 392; Holm v. People, 72 Colo. 257, 210 P. 698; Brasher v. People, 81 Colo. 113, 253 P. 827; Pillod v. People, 119 Colo. 116, 200 P.2d 919; Warren v. People, 121 Colo. 118,......
-
Pillod v. People
... ... Then, ... too, no objection was made to their testifying; no motion was ... made to strike the testimony given, and in the motion for a ... new trial there is no allegation that their evidence was ... incompetent or that they were not qualified to testify. As we ... said in Holm v. People, 72 Colo. 257, 258, 210 P ... 'Defendant's ... counsel made no objection to her testimony, did not move to ... strike it, nor otherwise during the trial question her ... qualification. Unless objection [119 Colo. 119] is made and ... exception saved to the admission of ... ...
-
Brasher v. People
...the trial court abused its discretion in permitting the witness to testify. Victor v. Smilanich, 54 Colo. 479, 131 P. 392; Holm v. People, 72 Colo. 257, 210 P. 698. 2. defendant assigns as error the refusal of the court to give his requested instruction cautioning the jury that the evidence......
-
Fuels Research Corp. v. Roberts
...under the agreement. Exhibit I was admitted without objection of defendant. We need not consider this alleged error. Holm v. People, 72 Colo. 257, 210 P. 698. Exhibits L and M, though offered in evidence, were in fact not admitted by the court. We have also considered the testimony concerni......
-
Children as Witnesses: Competency and Rules Favoring Their Testimony
...v. People, 10 Mich. 372 (1862); State v. Edwards, 79 N.C. 648 (1878). 4. 54 Colo. 479, 131 P. 392 (1913). 5. E.g., Holm v. People, 72 Colo. 257, 210 P. 698 (1922); Brasher v. People, 81 Colo. 113, 253 P. 827 (1927); Wessner v. People, 126 Colo. 400, 250 P.2d 124 (1952); Warren v. People, 12......