Monchego v. People

• Decision Date: 05 February 1940
• Docket Number: 14688.
• Citation: 99 P.2d 193,105 Colo. 486
• Parties: MONCHEGO v. PEOPLE.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

99 P.2d 193

105 Colo. 486

MONCHEGO v. PEOPLE.

No. 14688.

Supreme Court of Colorado

February 5, 1940

In Department.

Error to District Court, Costilla County; John I. Palmer, Judge.

Carlos Monchego was convicted of statutory rape, and he brings error.

Affirmed.

John B. Barnard, of Pueblo, for plaintiff in error.

Byron G. Rogers, Atty. Gen., and Gerald E. McAuliffe, Asst. Atty Gen., for the People.

BAKKE Justice.

Plaintiff in error was convicted of the crime of statutory rape, and seeks reversal on an application for supersedeas.

The seven assignments of error may be comprehended in three assertions: 1. That a letter--People's Exhibit 1--written by defendant to the prosecutrix was improperly admitted in evidence. 2. That error was committed by the court in permitting the district attorney to reopen his case after announcing that the people rested, for the purpose of introducing evidence to show that defendant was over eighteen years of age. 3. That the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict.

The information charged that the offense was committed May 29 1937. The girl gave birth to a child February 15, 1938.

1. Defendant admitted writing the letter, exhibit 1, which bears date of January 6, 1936. It was couched in the most intimate terms, and reads, in part, as follows: '* * * You know what I promise you a short time from now. * * * Some day you will be my partnership for the rest of my life.' The victim of the offense says she did not receive this letter until in January, 1937, but since defendant admits keeping company with her in 1936, the same inferences would be drawn from its contents, whether written in 1936 or 1937; therefore, the question is whether January, 1937, is too remote in time from May 29, 1937, to render the letter inadmissible. It was clearly admissible as showing their relations, and since it was written in the period during which they were closely associated, it was not too remote in point of time. The cases upon which counsel for defendant relies are not particularly helpful, because they do not sustain his contention as to remoteness. The note in 52 C.J 1061, in which the cases mentioned by him are cited, also refers to two cases: One where the confession of accused sought to be introduced was made more than two years after the commission of the offense charged (State v Lawrence, 74 Ohio St. 38, 77 N.E. 266, 6 Ann.Cas. 888) and in the other the statement was made five years Before (Tomlin v. State, 25 Tex.App. 676, 8 S.W. 931). In both these cases the statements were held to be inadmissible. But under the same subject in C.J. at page 1059, n. 42, a Texas case (Warren v. State, 96 Tex.Cr.R. 627, 259 S.W. 575) is cited, which holds that a remark of defendant made a year or more Before the commission of the offense charged was admissible. No court can say...