LeMasters v. People
| Decision Date | 05 March 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 83SC120,83SC120 |
| Parties | Larry Edward LeMASTERS, Petitioner, v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Respondent. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Berkley Rasband, P.C., Englewood, for petitioner.
Duane Woodard, Atty. Gen., Charles B. Howe, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Richard H. Forman, Sol. Gen., John Milton Hutchins, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for respondent.
We granted certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision which upheld the conviction of the defendant, Larry Edward LeMasters, for the crimes of first-degree burglary, section 18-4-202, C.R.S.1973, second-degree burglary, section 18-4-203, C.R.S.1973, criminal attempt to commit aggravated robbery, section 18-4-302, C.R.S.1973, second-degree assault, section 18-3-203, C.R.S.1973, and menacing, section 18-3-206, C.R.S.1973. People v. LeMasters, 666 P.2d 573 (Colo.App.1983). On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court erroneously admitted evidence which had been suppressed for the purpose of impeaching his direct testimony. We affirm because the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Chapman v California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967).
The record establishes that, on November 24, 1980, the victim was engaged in a telephone conversation with a friend when her doorbell rang. According to the victim's testimony at trial, she asked the friend to hold the line, walked over and peered through the front panel door, and observed a man, later identified as the defendant, wearing a waist-length blue parka with an attached hood drawn tightly over his head. The victim asked the defendant what he wanted. The defendant responded that one of his co-workers at the construction site across the street had fallen and was in need of immediate medical aid. The victim opened the door and allowed the defendant to enter. She then indicated to the defendant that she was on the telephone and asked that he "wait a minute." According to her testimony, the victim returned to the telephone, explained the situation to the friend, and requested that she call her back in "two minutes" because she felt nervous about having a stranger in her house.
Thereafter, the victim opened a cabinet door in her kitchen and showed the defendant a "speedy dialing system" with which he could depress a single button and contact the local hospital. According to the victim, the defendant declined to use the "speedy dialing system," stating:
After several unsuccessful attempts to get through to the main office, the defendant asked the victim for a glass of water. The victim walked to the cupboard, obtained a glass, and poured him a glass of water. According to the testimony, the defendant drank the water and returned the glass to the sink. He then went to the telephone and again tried unsuccessfully to place the call.
Several minutes later, the defendant asked the victim if he could use her restroom. She replied in the affirmative and directed him to the restroom. While the defendant was in the restroom, the victim became apprehensive because "the whole process was taking so long," and took a kitchen knife from the nearby butcher block and placed it on the counter directly behind her. When the defendant returned to the kitchen, he tried once again to get his call through to the main office, but was unsuccessful. The victim testified that she then suggested to the defendant that he call and request the operator to "break into" the line. The defendant agreed with the victim's suggestion, stepped toward the kitchen cabinet as if to pick up the telephone receiver, and then suddenly swung around and came at the victim with a knife.
According to the victim's testimony, she and the defendant then struggled for the knife, during which time she was able to reach back behind her and activate a silent alarm. When told that the victim had just activated a silent alarm, the defendant stated: "Okay, okay then I will just take some money." The victim then began to scream violently, whereupon the defendant said: "I am just going to leave."
The victim testified that she then ran through the garage and out of the house where she saw the defendant walking across her front lawn toward a parked blue car. She flagged down a passing motorist, explained the situation to him, and requested that he approach in his truck the defendant's parked car and "get [his] license number." Before the driver and the victim could approach the defendant's parked car, the defendant got in his car and proceeded directly past the truck. According to the victim, the defendant's car had no front license plate so they waited for the defendant to drive past the parked truck and then the driver looked back at the defendant's rear license plate, observed the license plate number, and wrote the information down on a piece of paper.
At trial, there was evidence that the defendant's fingerprints were on a glass that the victim said the defendant used. The record also reflects that there was identification testimony at trial by the victim. In addition, the license plate number noted by the driver of the truck was traced to the defendant.
The defendant's defense at trial was a general denial and alibi. The defendant took the stand and testified that he had not been at the home of the victim on the date of the offense. He conceded, however, that he had previously been at the victim's home while he was employed as a landscape gardener and worked in the victim's yard in July, 1980.
The jury found the defendant guilty of first-degree burglary, second-degree burglary, criminal attempt to commit aggravated robbery, second-degree assault, and menacing. The majority of the Court of Appeals affirmed. People v. LeMasters, 666 P.2d 573 (Colo.App.1983). We granted certiorari on the single issue of whether the impeachment exception to the exclusionary rule allows the prosecution to introduce previously suppressed physical evidence to impeach a defendant's general denial of involvement in a crime.
Prior to trial, a hood, knife, and sweater which had been taken from the defendant were suppressed as products of an unlawful search. 1 At trial, the victim testified on direct examination that her assailant was wearing a blue ski parka at the time of the attack. She stated:
Q [Prosecution]:
A [The victim]: "Yes."
....
Q [Prosecution]:
A [The victim]: "Do I have to do this?"
The defendant took the stand and testified in his own behalf. On direct examination, he denied that he had been at the victim's home on November 24, 1980. Although he stated at trial that he owned the ski parka, he did not testify as to the hood, knife, or sweater. Upon completion of direct examination, the prosecution requested an in camera hearing before commencing cross-examination. At the in camera hearing, the prosecution stated:
(Emphasis supplied.)
Defense counsel objected and the trial court ruled that "[u]nder the authority of ... United States v. Havens and People v. Lowe, 39 Colo.App. 312, 565 P.2d 1352, the People may proceed to cross-examine the defendant with regard to the items suppressed, being physical evidence, together with statements suppressed."
On cross-examination, the following exchange took place:
Q [Prosecution]: "Now, Mr. LeMasters, you heard [the victim] testify; did you not?"
A [Defendant]: "Yes, I did."
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Trujillo, No. 01SC434.
...himself, is permissible only if it presents a direct conflict or contradiction with the witness' trial testimony. See LeMasters v. People, 678 P.2d 538, 543 (Colo. 1984). In the case before us, the defendant's statement that he actually knew he was to appear in court on the day in question ......
-
Lanari v. People
...(1975); Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222, 91 S.Ct. 643, 28 L.Ed.2d 1 (1971); People v. Branch, 805 P.2d 1075 (Colo.1991); LeMasters v. People, 678 P.2d 538 (Colo.1984); People v. Cole, 195 Colo. 483, 584 P.2d 71 The defendant asserts that in prohibiting Dr. Plazak from presenting expert tes......
-
People v. Deitchman, 84SA16
...v. Wilkerson, 189 Colo. 448, 541 P.2d 896 (1975) (illegally obtained evidence is admissible in probation proceedings); LeMasters v. People, 678 P.2d 538 (Colo.1984) (illegally obtained evidence can be used at trial for impeachment purposes when the defendant elects to take the stand). In ge......
-
State v. Gardner
...v. McManaman, 606 F.2d 919, 924-25 (10th Cir.1979); State v. Walker, 138 Ariz. 491, 675 P.2d 1310, 1314 (1984); Lemasters v. People, 678 P.2d 538, 542-43 (Colo.1984); State v. Cartwright, 200 Mont. 91, 650 P.2d 758, 763 (1982); State v. Holland, 98 Wash.2d 507, 520, 656 P.2d 1056, 1063 (198......
-
The Defendant's Decision Not to Testify
...violation of defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel). 19. U.S. v. Havens, 466 U.S. 680 (1980). See generally, LeMasters v. People, 678 P.2d 538, 542 (Colo. 1984); People v. Eickman, 728 P.2d 369, 371-72 (Colo.App. 1986). 20. People v. Sandoval, 710 P.2d 1161 (Colo.App. 1985). 21. See,......
-
Prior Inconsistent Statements
...U.S. 222 (1971); Oregon v. Haas, 420 U.S. 714 (1975). 20. People v. Velarde, 196 Colo. 254, 485 P.2d 6 (1978). 21. LeMasters v. People, 678 P.2d 538 (Colo. 1984). 22. People v. Allen, 193 Colo. 526, 568 P.2d 56 (1977); People v. Pearson, 190 Colo. 313, 546 P.2d 1259 (1976). 1980 23. People ......
-
Impeachment
...People, 496 P.2d 1029 (Colo. 1972). 60. CRE 613. 61. Id. 62. People v. Eickman, 728 P.2d 369 (Colo. App. 1986). 63. LeMasters v. People, 678 P.2d 538 (Colo. 1981). 64. Eickman, supra, note 62. 65. LeMasters, supra, note 63. 66. CRS § 18-3-407. See also Burtzos, supra, note 13 at 1183. 67. C......