Meredith v. People, No. 20298

Docket NºNo. 20298
Citation152 Colo. 69, 380 P.2d 227
Case DateApril 01, 1963
CourtSupreme Court of Colorado

Page 227

380 P.2d 227
152 Colo. 69
Lloyd Dean MEREDITH, Plaintiff in Error,
v.
The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Defendant in Error.
No. 20298.
Supreme Court of Colorado, In Department.
April 1, 1963.

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.

[152 Colo. 70] HALL, Justice.

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.'

[152 Colo. 71] 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.

Page 228

See Roberts v. People, 11 Colo. 213, 17 P. 637, where it is said:

'* * * In the case at bar, we have to deal with the admission of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 practice notes
  • People v. LaRosa, No. 11SC664.
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • February 11, 2013
    ...Rankin, 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......
  • People v. Gonzales, No. 25794
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • August 6, 1974
    ...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, NO. PD–0038–14
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • April 15, 2015
    ...used 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 ......
  • People v. LaRosa, Supreme Court Case No. 11SC664
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • January 14, 2013
    ...v. Rankin,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 rel......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • People v. LaRosa, No. 11SC664.
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • February 11, 2013
    ...Rankin, 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......
  • People v. Gonzales, No. 25794
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • August 6, 1974
    ...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, NO. PD–0038–14
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • April 15, 2015
    ...used 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 ......
  • People v. LaRosa, Supreme Court Case No. 11SC664
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • January 14, 2013
    ...v. Rankin,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 rel......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT