May v. People, 11227.
| Docket Nº | 11227. |
| Citation | 236 P. 1022, 77 Colo. 432 |
| Case Date | June 01, 1925 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Colorado |
236 P. 1022
77 Colo. 432
MAY
v.
PEOPLE.
No. 11227.
Supreme Court of Colorado
June 1, 1925
Department 3.
Error to County Court, City and County of Denver; Geo. A. Garard, Judge.
Alex May was convicted of possessing and selling intoxicating liquors, and he brings error and moves for supersedeas.
Supersedeas denied, and judgment affirmed.
[77 Colo. 433] Chas. R. Conlee and Albert E. Sherlock, both of Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Wm. L. Boatright, Atty. Gen., and Jean S. Breitenstein, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the People.
SHEAFOR, J.
Plaintiff in error was convicted before a justice of the peace of having in his possession and selling intoxicating liquors and was fined $100. An appeal was taken to the county court, where he was again convicted and fined $300, and sentenced to jail for a term of six months. He brings the case here for review and moves for a supersedeas.
Defendant's grounds, which he urges for reversal, may be summarized as follows: (1) That the court erred in the admission of evidence; (2) that the court erred in not allowing defendant to file a motion for new trial; (3) that the court erred in allowing a bottle, alleged to contain intoxicating liquors, to be passed to the jury; and (4) that the sentence of the court was excessive and contrary to the evidence and the law.
We have carefully read the record and are unable to find that the court erred in the admission of evidence. In some instances no exceptions were saved, and in others the admission of the evidence was proper as against the objections made, and in still other instances the admission of the evidence, if erroneous, was not prejudicial to the defendant.
There was clear and convincing evidence of defendant's guilt aside from any evidence that might have been erroneously admitted.
[77 Colo. 434] It was within the discretion of the trial court to grant or refuse leave to file a motion for new trial. Rule 8 of this court. In the ruling of the court on this question, there appears no abuse of discretion, and no error.
Error is also predicated upon the ruling of the court permitting the bottle, alleged to contain intoxicating liquors, to be passed to the jury. What was done with it [236 P. 1023.] by the jury the record does not disclose. It does not appear that harm or prejudice resulted to defendant, for there was other evidence, ample and complete, that the bottle contained moonshine whisky and that defendant sold it for whisky. We...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Koontz v. People, 11883.
...People, 66 Colo. 94, 97, 179 P. 137, we said that in such circumstances, technical errors are not ground for reversal. In May v. People, 77 Colo. 432, 435, 236 P. 1022, 1023, Mr. Justice Sheafor, delivering the opinion of the court, said: 'Where one knowingly and willfully violates the law,......
-
Oaks v. People, 19992
...generally afford no grounds for reversal of a judgment Page 446 where the guilt of the defendant has been clearly proven. May v. People, 77 Colo. 432, 236 P. 1022; cf. Phenneger v. People, 85 Colo. 442, 276 P. 983; Balfe v. People, 66 Colo. 94, 179 P. 137. But even technical errors may in s......
-
Gould v. People, 22531
...rights of this defendant nor did they render for him an unfair trial. Koontz v. People, 82 Colo. 589, 263 P. 19; May v. People, 77 Colo. 432, 236 P. 1022; Voris v. People, 75 Colo. 574, 227 P. 551; 24 B C.J.S. Criminal Law § Nor does the cumulative effect of such irregularities or errors af......
-
Abshier v. People, 12558.
...Under our rule 8, it was within the discretion of the trial court to grant or refuse leave to file the motion at all. May v. People, 77 Colo. 432, 236 P. 1022. [289 P. 1090.] 'The fact that the trial judge refused to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial indicates that his reason and ......