Lauderdale v. People
| Decision Date | 27 February 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 21934,21934 |
| Citation | 424 P.2d 373,162 Colo. 36 |
| Parties | Thomas Marvin LAUDERDALE, Plaintiff in Error, v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Allott & Rogers, Lamar, Schmidt & Schmidt, Springfield, for plaintiff in error.
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Atty. Gen., Robert C. Miller, Asst. Atty. gen., Denver, for defendant in error.
The plaintiff in error, Thomas Marvin Lauderdale, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was convicted of murder in the first degree by the District Court of Cheyenne County. On December 21, 1955, he was sentenced to imprisonment for life upon the verdict of the jury. No writ of error was sought at that time. We point out that the defendant escaped from the penitentiary on the day that this matter was orally argued before us, but we understand that he has now been returned to confinement.
On June 28, 1963, defendant filed his motion to vacate sentence under Colo.R.Crim.P. 35(b) upon the grounds that his constitutional rights had been violated, because of prolonged interrogation by the Sheriff and the District Attorney and the use at his trial of three written statements arising out of such interrogation.
Counsel was appointed to represent Lauderdale and he filed another motion to vacate the sentence under Rule 35(b), which, in addition to the alleged violation of constitutional rights arising out of the interrogation and the statements taken, also raised the issue of the absence of counsel at the interrogation and spelled out in somewhat greater detail the defendant's claim of coercion in giving the statements in question.
The trial court gave the defendant a very full evidentiary hearing. A forty-six page opinion, containing a detailed statement of the evidence adduced at the hearing, findings of fact, conclusions of law and order was then filed by the trial judge. The trial court found that at the time of the taking of the three written statements, complained of here: (1) the defendant was not under the influence of narcotic drugs or alcohol, (2) the defendant was not held incommunicado from the time of his arrest to the time of his arraignment of at any time during such period, (3) the defendant was not continuously questioned for a period of forty-five hours or more, (4) the defendant was not subjected to physical beatings and abuse nor such psychological pressures and coercion to the degree that his will was overborne, (5) the defendant made the statements voluntarily, (6) the defendant made no request for an attorney during the period of his interrogation, (7) the statements were admitted as admissions without submitting the question of voluntariness to the jury for its determination of the issue, (8) the defendant was represented at his trial by competent counsel, (9) the defendant was advised of his right to appeal after the verdict was rendered, and understood his right to appeal and no appeal was made by him nor by any person for him within the time provided by law, and that defendant was furnished a free transcript of the trial proceedings in the summer of 1958, (10) the defendant was not represented by an attorney during the time that he was being questioned by the authorities, and (11) from the time of the defendant's arrest and while he was being questioned, at no time was he ever advised of his right to an attorney nor of his right to remain silent nor of the fact that any statement given by him might be used against him at his subsequent trial. There is ample evidence to support each of these findings of fact.
As a result of the findings of fact and conclusions of law, the trial court ordered that defendant's motion be granted to the extent that he should, at the election of the State, be given (1) a new trial, or (2) a hearing in the trial court on the question of the voluntariness of the statements admitted into evidence at his trial, and required the State to elect in writing within thirty days the course it would follow. The State elected neither to grant a new trial to the defendant nor to grant him a new trial on the question of voluntariness of his statements. Both parties have assigned error in this Court to the judgment of the trial court. The People contend that the findings of fact made by the trial judge required overruling of the 35(b) motion in all respects.
Defendant contends that the trial court erred with respect to its findings of fact hereinabove numbered 1 through 9, and in its conclusions of law, and should have either set defendant free or ordered a new trial.
In condensed form, defendant's contentions present five basic issues: (1) that his statements were not voluntary; (2) that the question of voluntariness was not submitted to the jury under proper instructions; (3) that he was not advised of his right to counsel during interrogation, nor furnished with counsel at such time; (4) that his counsel was incompetent; and (5) that he was not advised of his right to appeal following conviction.
The principal complaint of the defendant is directed toward the alleged failure of the original trial court to follow the established procedure of this jurisdiction to resolve the voluntariness of his alleged confessions. The defendant never objected to admission of the statements--now claimed to have been confessions--on the ground that the same were not voluntary. His objection was two-pronged: one objection being to various self-serving statements of the officers made during the several interrogations, and the other being a general objection, the exact basis of which is not clearly ascertainable from the record.
It is true that three of the statements given by defendant to the officers were treated as admissions in the original trial and not as confessions, and the question of a direct objection to the voluntariness of the statements, whether they be admissions or confessions, was never directly put in issue.
During the In camera hearing dealing with the admissibility of those statements, defendant's counsel renewed his objection to the statements, and based his objection solely upon the proposition that the statements contained self-serving statements of the interrogating officers and that if the statements were to be admitted, the objectionable statements should be deleted.
Be that as it may, the original trial judge carefully held the statements to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Deeds v. People
...affirmed. 1 For cases applying the orthodox rule, see, e.g., People v. Shearer, 181 Colo. 237, 508 P.2d 1249 (1973); Lauderdale v. People, 162 Colo. 36, 424 P.2d 373 (1967); Gallegos v. People, 145 Colo. 53, 358 P.2d 1028 (1960), rev'd on other grounds, 370 U.S. 49, 82 S.Ct. 1209, 8 L.Ed.2d......
-
Kwiatkoski v. People
...People v. Shearer, 181 Colo. 237, 508 P.2d 1249 (1973); Sackett v. People, 176 Colo. 18, 488 P.2d 885 (1971); Lauderdale v. People, 162 Colo. 36, 424 P.2d 373 (1967); Gallegos v. People, 145 Colo. 53, 358 P.2d 1028 (1960), rev'd on other grounds, 370 U.S. 49, 82 S.Ct. 1209, 8 L.Ed.2d 325 (1......
-
Hunter v. People
...once an issue is raised concerning voluntariness. People v. Salvador, 189 Colo. 181, 539 P.2d 1273 (1975). See also Lauderdale v. People, 162 Colo. 36, 424 P.2d 373 (1967). The issue presented here is one of first impression in this state. When an objection is properly raised at trial chall......
-
People v. Bradley, 23236
...Court, Colo., 431 P.2d 763; Segura v. People, colo., 431 P.2d 768; Brown v. People, 162 Colo. 406, 426 P.2d 764; Lauderdale v. People, 162 Colo. 36, 424 p.2d 373; Buckles v. People, 162 Colo. 51, 424 P.2d 774, where we have heard constitutional issues in 35(b) proceedings and decided them o......