Martinez v. People, No. 22688
| Docket Nº | No. 22688 |
| Citation | 431 P.2d 765, 163 Colo. 503 |
| Case Date | September 18, 1967 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Colorado |
Page 765
v.
The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Defendant in Error.
[163 Colo. 504] Edward H. Sherman and Joseph R. Quinn, Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Atty. Gen., James W.
Page 766
Creamer, Jr., Paul D. Rubner, Asst. Attys. Gen., Denver, for defendant in error.HODGES, Justice.
Plaintiff in error, Raymond Pedro Martinez, was the defendant in the trial court and will be referred to herein as defendant.
[163 Colo. 505] The defendant and Rufus Max Apodaca were charged in a multi-count information and found guilty by a jury of the first four counts, namely, burglary, conspiracy to commit burglary, larceny, and conspiracy to commit larceny. On the first two counts, the defendant was sentenced on each to a term in the penitentiary of not less than one and not more than three years, the sentences to run concurrently. On the third and fourth counts of larceny and conspiracy to commit larceny, the defendant was sentenced to six months on each charge which sentences were suspended.
Rufus Max Apodaca was likewise found guilty on the same counts and sentenced. He also seeks reversal by his writ of error on generally the same assignments of error as argued by the defendant. See Apodaca v. People, Colo., 431 P.2d 763 announced the same date as our decision herein.
The following two contentions raised by the defendant's writ of error formulate the basis for reversal:
(1) That count one (burglary) and count two (conspiracy to commit burglary) of the information failed to allege offenses against the People of the State of Colorado, and accordingly the court was without jurisdiction over these offenses and could not validly sentence the defendant on these charges for which the jury returned verdicts of guilty; and
(2) That Instruction No. 16, regarding unexplained recent possession of stolen property, indicated to the jury that the burden of proving rightful possession was on the defendant, and that this instruction therefore had the effect of shifting the burden to the defendant to prove his innocence. As given, claims the defendant, this instruction is fatally defective.
I.
The first count of the information, insofar as pertinent, is as follows:--
'* * * informs the Court that, on the eighth day of August, A.D.1965, at the City and County of Denver, and State [163 Colo. 506] of Colorado, RUFUS MAX APODACA and RAYMOND PEDRO MARTINEZ * * * did then and there feloniously, wilfully and maliciously break and enter, and did then and there feloniously, wilfully and maliciously without force enter the building of TUXALL UNIFORM MFG. CO., a corporation, located at 3704 Downing Street, with the intent then and there to commit a crime; contrary to the form of the statute in such case...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Rodriguez, No. 91SA112
...murder because those counts did not allege the elements of their various predicate offenses. Rodriguez cites Martinez v. People, 163 Colo. 503, 506-07, 431 P.2d 765, 766-67 (1967), in support of this proposition. The holding of Martinez cannot support Rodriguez' argument. In Martinez, we he......
-
People v. Williams, No. 98SC109.
...crime. Thus, analogizing these two crimes and relying upon Gomez v. People, 162 Colo. 77, 424 P.2d 387 (1967), and Martinez v. People, 163 Colo. 503, 431 P.2d 765 (1967), the court of appeals held that the information was insufficient, insofar as it failed to adequately apprise the defendan......
-
Cooper v. People, No. 97SC662
...has always required proof that a burglary defendant had the intent to commit a crime at the time of trespass. See Martinez v. People, 163 Colo. 503, 506, 431 P.2d 765, 766 (1967) ("One of the essential elements in a charge of burglary ... is that the accused have the intent to commit a......
-
State v. Russell, No. 48
...between counts in an indictment but indicate that this practice is a well-accepted rule of criminal procedure. Martinez v. People, 163 Colo. 503, 431 P.2d 765 (1967), '. . . There are many cases, however, which follow the time honored and basic rule that one count in an information may by p......
-
People v. Rodriguez, No. 91SA112
...murder because those counts did not allege the elements of their various predicate offenses. Rodriguez cites Martinez v. People, 163 Colo. 503, 506-07, 431 P.2d 765, 766-67 (1967), in support of this proposition. The holding of Martinez cannot support Rodriguez' argument. In Martinez, we he......
-
People v. Williams, No. 98SC109.
...crime. Thus, analogizing these two crimes and relying upon Gomez v. People, 162 Colo. 77, 424 P.2d 387 (1967), and Martinez v. People, 163 Colo. 503, 431 P.2d 765 (1967), the court of appeals held that the information was insufficient, insofar as it failed to adequately apprise the defendan......
-
Cooper v. People, No. 97SC662
...has always required proof that a burglary defendant had the intent to commit a crime at the time of trespass. See Martinez v. People, 163 Colo. 503, 506, 431 P.2d 765, 766 (1967) ("One of the essential elements in a charge of burglary ... is that the accused have the intent to commit a spec......
-
State v. Russell, No. 48
...between counts in an indictment but indicate that this practice is a well-accepted rule of criminal procedure. Martinez v. People, 163 Colo. 503, 431 P.2d 765 (1967), '. . . There are many cases, however, which follow the time honored and basic rule that one count in an information may by p......