Madrid v. People
| Decision Date | 02 October 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 19778,19778 |
| Citation | 148 Colo. 149,365 P.2d 39 |
| Parties | Robert J. MADRID, Plaintiff in Error, v. PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
William L. Whittaker, Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Atty. Gen., George W. Nicastro, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.
Plaintiff in error, to whom we will refer as defendant, was convicted of unlawful possession of a narcotic drug, Cannabis Sativa L, commonly known as marijuana, and from the judgment and sentence imposed brings error.
The incident out of which the charge arose occurred as follows: Defendant and his cousin were walking home on a city street from a night club area about 1:15 a. m. Two police officers in a patrol car observed them and decided to check them out. They followed the men for almost a city block without lights, when they suddenly switched them on. Both men had their backs to the car and were a few feet from it at that time. The officers noted a motion by defendant as though dropping or throwing something away. He also tried to flee, leaving his lame companion. He was quickly apprehended. A search of the immediate area from where he began his flight revealed a crumpled Pall Mall cigarette package, with what later proved to be two and a half marijuana cigarettes in it. Upon being taken to police headquarters defendant's pockets were carefully emptied and the contents tested. The debris from one pocket was found to contain a very minor amount of marijuana. It was not possible to determine whether the latter quantity had come from the cigarettes in question. No trace of the narcotic was found in defendant's companion's possession. The evidence also disclosed that the two suspects admitted smoking Pall Mall cigarettes that evening. Defendant denied that the package was his, denied that he had any narcotic in his possession and asserted that the clothing he wore had just been given him by a friend, the latter point being considerably weakened by his friend's testimony as to point of time of the gift.
Based on these facts the case was submitted to the jury with the results above mentioned.
Defendant urges two grounds for reversal: (1) That he was not properly arraigned and therefore the arraignment is void and of no effect; and (2) That the evidence presented was insufficient to support the verdict. A third ground urged in the original Assignment of Errors was that the court erred in imposing an improper and illegal sentence. The latter has been waived and will not be considered further.
The record indicates that the information, in two counts, was filed on April 19, 1960. The first count charged unlawful possession of marijuana under C.R.S. '53, 48-6-2. The second count charged a previous conviction of a felonious offense under the laws of the United States relative to narcotic drugs. The record also indicates that on April 29, 1960, defendant waived the reading of the information, was arraigned, and pleaded not guilty.
Defendant argues that these recitations in the record are incorrect. He contends that on April 29, 1960, he was not arraigned on the second count of the information which charged prior conviction, but on July 21, 1960, was re-arraigned on the first count and arraigned for the first time on the second count. Defendant further contends that during the re-arraignment the court misadvised him as to the penalty in the event of conviction on the second count, informing him that he was liable for a greater penalty than the law authorized in the event of his conviction on the first count. In connection with this contention it is to be noted that defendant entered a plea of not guilty on the first count and guilty on the second count.
We find no merit in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Vigil
...Segura v. People, 159 Colo. 371, 412 P.2d 227 (1966); Gottfried v. People, 158 Colo. 510, 408 P.2d 431 (1965); Madrid v. People, 148 Colo. 149, 365 P.2d 39 (1961). As part of his allegation of prejudice, the defendant argues that the district court's refusal to permit defense counsel to ask......