Meredith v. People, 20298
| Decision Date | 01 April 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 20298,20298 |
| Citation | 152 Colo. 69,380 P.2d 227 |
| Parties | Lloyd Dean MEREDITH, Plaintiff in Error, v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Jack K. Agee, Colorado Springs, for plaintiff in error.
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Atty. Gen., John E. Bush, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for defendant in error.
Plaintiff in error, to whom we shall refer as the defendant or Meredith, was charged with contributing to the delinquency of a five year old boy by engaging in unnatural sex acts with the boy.
The defendant entered a plea of not guilty and was tried without a jury, found guilty, and was sentenced to serve one year in the county jail and to pay a fine of $1,000.00.
He is here by writ of error seeking reversal.
The people called only three witnesses, all law enforcement officers. They had questioned Meredith for four or five hours and testified as to admissions of the defendant which strongly tended to prove his guilt.
These same officers had also asked defendant if he would give a written statement. He said he would and a statement was prepared. Whether defendant signed the statement does not appear from the record, though the district attorney used the statement in cross-examining the defendant.
The trial court, in summation of the testimony, had this to say:
'* * * His subsequent admissions testified to by three different officers, at three different occasions, followed by a written statement, which, of course, was not put in evidence, certainly confirms the fact that there was at sometime a type of molestation * * *.' (Emphasis supplied.)
To what, if any, extent the trial court was influenced by this written statement cannot be determined from the record.
At the close of the people's case Meredith moved 'that the case be dismissed with a directed verdict in favor of the defendant * * *.' After argument the trial judge stated, 'I deny the motion for a directed verdict.'
Clearly this was error, for there was no evidence that a crime had been committed other than the admissions or confession of the defendant. The law is well settled, and the attorney general admits, that extrajudicial confession without corroboration is not sufficient to sustain a conviction.
See Roberts v. People, 11 Colo. 213, 17 P. 637, where it is said:
* * *'
Also Downey v. People, 121 Colo. 307, 215 P.2d 892, where it is said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. LaRosa
...191 Colo. 508, 510, 554 P.2d 1107, 1108 (1976); People v. Smith, 182 Colo. 31, 33, 510 P.2d 893, 894 (1973); Meredith v. People, 152 Colo. 69, 71, 380 P.2d 227, 227–28 (1963). ¶ 17 There seems to be little consensus concerning the rationale behind the rule, but courts typically rely on some......
-
People v. Gonzales
...or theft. Martin v. People, 179 Colo. 237, 499 P.2d 606 (1973); Owen v. People, 155 Colo. 19, 392 P.2d 163 (1964); Meredith v. People, 152 Colo. 69, 380 P.2d 227 (1963). Note, Proof of the Corpus Delicti Aliunde The Defendant's Confession, 103 Univ. of Pa.L.Rev. 638 (1955). Accordingly, the......
-
Miller v. State
...to block convictions for real crimes that resulted in no verifiable injury. See LaRosa, 293 P.3d at 574 (citing Meredith v. Colorado, 152 Colo. 69, 380 P.2d 227, 227–28 (1963) ; Colorado v. Robson, 80 P.3d 912, 913–14 (Colo.Ct.App.2003) ) (citing two cases in which defendants that had confe......
-
People v. Applegate, 25270
...evidence of the Corpus delicti. See Martin v. People, Colo., 499 P.2d 606; Owen v. People, 155 Colo. 19, 392 P.2d 163; Meredith v. People, 152 Colo. 69, 380 P.2d 227; Williams v. People, 114 Colo. 207, 158 P.2d Examining the case presented by the People--devoid of defendant's statement--the......
-
Burying the Body—dismantling the Corpus Delicti Rule and Adopting the Trustworthiness Standard
...became a part of American jurisprudence. Moran traces the foundations of the rule to 17th century England. [16] See Meredith v. People, 380 P.2d 227 (Colo. 1963) (rule operated to overturn conviction of man for engaging in "unnatural" sex acts with a 5-year-old boy); People v. Rankin, 554 P......