Nieto v. People, 21550
| Decision Date | 20 June 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 21550,21550 |
| Citation | 160 Colo. 179,415 P.2d 531 |
| Parties | Alfonso M. NIETO, Plaintiff in Error, v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Thomas T. Farley, Pueblo, for plaintiff in error.
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Atty. Gen., Robert C. Miller, Asst. Atty. Gen., George H. Sibley, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for defendant in error.
Alfonso M. Nieto was found guilty of felonious escape from the State Honor Farm where he was a confined felon. Error is alleged in that: first, the trial court admitted improper documentary evidence of Nieto's identity as a confined felon; and second, the trial court orally qualified its tenth instruction.
Nieto and four inmate companions obtained a large quantity of wine which they consumed on the premises of the State Honor Farm. One participant, a mechanic, had access to a prison truck, and, their thirsts not having been slaked, they all set out to obtain more libation. There was evidence that, on leaving the Honor Harm, Nieto was feeling the effects of this winebibbing somewhat more than his fellows; he had, in fact, to be bundled into the truck. After purchasing a quart of whiskey, a quart of vodka, and twelve cans of beer, part of which was consumed on the spot, the merry band started off in the truck, and, somewhat understandably, became lost.
It was Nieto's contention, supported by some evidence, that upon coming to his senses and noting he no longer was on the Honor Farm, he immediately disassociated himself from the carousal. Nieto allegedly seized the truck's steering wheel and the vehicle left the road. Nieto claims an altercation with his companions then followed, caused by his anger at having been taken from the Farm.
At this stage of events, the Honor Farm's officer in charge happened along the very road upon which the prison truck and its occupants had stopped. Recognizing both truck and men, he brought the felons to bay.
Nieto and his companions were charged with felonious escape under C.R.S.1963, 40--7--53. All save Nieto pled guilty. His defense was that he was too drunk to form the state of mind necessary for commission of the offense. A trial resulted in a jury verdict of guilty and the alleged errors before us. We will consider them in the order recounted in the first paragraph of this opinion.
Neito's first contention of error is that he was not adequately proved to be a person who '* * * after being found guilty of a felony by a court or jury or after pleading guilty to a felony * * *' was '* * * being held in jail or * * * in the custody of any person lawfully having charge of him * * *' as required by C.R.S.1963, 40--7--53. In short, he claims his identity was not lawfully established; in particular, he claims the documents used to establish his identity were not properly authenticated under Rule 27 of the Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure and Rule 44(a) of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure and the explicit requirements therein contained.
We feel it is unnecessary, in the present case, to consider this matter exhaustively. Nieto himself took the witness stand and testified, as of his own knowledge, to every fact sought to have been established by the offered documents. Any error was therefore harmless. However, absent this vital testimony, the lack of strict compliance with the appropriate rules of procedure in authenticating documents would present serious questions for this court to consider. We perceive no reason why, especially in criminal cases, the mandates of our statutes may be treated lightly rather than being rigidly complied with.
We turn now to the more substantial allegation of error concerning conduct of the court with reference to oral 'qualification' of its instructions. The court instructed the jury at the conclusion of the case and they retired, after counsels' closing statements, to deliberate. Late that evening, the judge called the jury from their deliberations and asked if anything was troubling them. He was told the jury was having difficulty with the court's tenth instruction, which reads as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Key v. People
...the jury or responds to questions from the jury." Leonardo v. People, 728 P.2d 1252, 1257 (Colo.1986); see also Nieto v. People, 160 Colo. 179, 183, 415 P.2d 531, 533 (1966). "It is therefore constitutional error for a trial judge to respond to an inquiry from a jury without first making re......
-
Leonardo v. People
...when the judge gives instructions to the jury or responds to questions from the jury. Colo. Const. art. II, § 16; Nieto v. People, 160 Colo. 179, 183, 415 P.2d 531, 533 (1966) (trial court knew where defense counsel could be found). 5 Implicit within this right is the right of defense couns......
- People v. Hill, 25384
-
People v. Germany, 77-578
...present by counsel at the time instructions are given to the jury is a fundamental right of constitutional proportion. Nieto v. People, 160 Colo. 179, 415 P.2d 531 (1966). However, our Supreme Court has stated that: " '(A)lthough communications between a judge and the jury outside of the pr......
-
Section 16 CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS - RIGHTS OF DEFENDANT.
...v. People, 174 Colo. 164, 482 P.2d 983 (1971). Right to counsel when the court is instructing the jury is fundamental. Nieto v. People, 160 Colo. 179, 415 P.2d 531 (1966). As is right to counsel during sentencing. The nature and possibilities of this important and critical stage of the proc......
-
Rule 44 PROOF OF OFFICIAL RECORD.
...own knowledge, to every fact sought to have been established by the offered documents, any error is therefore harmless. Nieto v. People, 160 Colo. 179, 415 P.2d 531 (1966). Applied in Hamilton v. Hardy, 37 Colo. App. 375, 549 P.2d 1099 (1976). C. Foreign. Law reviews. For comment on Walker ......