Orin v. People
| Decision Date | 05 April 1920 |
| Docket Number | 9658. |
| Parties | ORIN v. PEOPLE. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Error to District Court, Morgan County; L. C. Stephenson, Judge.
Bert Orin was convicted of three separate violations of the Prohibitory Liquor Law, and he brings error.
Reversed.
Paul De Laney, of Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Victor E. Keyes, Atty. Gen., and Charles H. Sherrick, Asst. Atty Gen., for the People.
The plaintiff in error was charged in three separate informations with the violation of the Prohibitory Liquor Law, all filed on the 25th day of January, 1919.
The first information charged the unlawful carrying of liquor into the state without marking conspicuously, as provided by the act of 1915 (Laws 1915, p. 275). The second information charged the unlawful carrying of liquor from one point to another within the state. The third information charged the unlawful carrying of liquor upon defendant's person and in an automobile.
The cases were consolidated for the purpose of trial, and the defendant was convicted in each case, and cumulative sentences of imprisonment imposed.
Other persons were jointly charged with defendant, but the record does not disclose what disposition of the cases was made as to them.
There are many assignments of error, but it is not necessary to consider all of them. It is perhaps sufficient to say that there was no sufficient testimony upon the trial to justify a conviction in either case.
The evidence seems to show that two automobiles left Cheyenne Wyo., in the evening, one a Buick Six, and the other a King Eight, and it is contended that these same automobiles were found at the farm premises of a man named Berks, in Morgan county, Colo., early the next morning.
There is no substantial evidence of the identity of the machines leaving Cheyenne with those found at Berks' farm. There is no testimony to disclose that either of the machines carried any liquor when they left Cheyenne. It is plain that there was no liquor or packages in either machine when found at the farm of Berks, but a quantity of whisky was at the time found in a manger in Berks' barn, and also near a chicken coop where it was hidden under a pile of straw.
There is testimony that the defendant was in Cheyenne on the day of the evening in which it is said that the machines left that point, and that he had some repairs made on a Buick Six automobile that day.
There is no testimony that the defendant drove, road in, or was in charge or possession of either machine when they left Cheyenne or at any time afterward.
It does appear that the defendant and Berks and another man were driving in a Ford machine shortly after the officers discovered the machines and liquor at Berks' farm apparently going in the direction of Berks' house.
It also appears that later Berks and another man soon thereafter arrived at his house, where he entertained the party at breakfast, but the defendant was not with them, and was not seen by the officers.
It appears that, when the machines were discovered by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robinson v. People
...of the degree of the crime, if defendant was found guilty, potentially could not have been other than prejudicial to his cause. See Orin v. People, supra. All the testimony in examination was admissible as part of the res gestae and was so considerable by the jury. The vice, and prejudice t......
-
Gallegos v. People
...where the evidence does not warrant it, a special instruction of this nature is unfair and a basis for reversible error. See Orin v. People, 68 Colo. 1, 188 P. 1114. On the other hand, where there is evidence of flight as a deliberate attempt to avoid detection and arrest, a flight instruct......
-
State v. McLaughlin
...shall be indicted and punished as such.'2 State v. Goodwin, Mo., 217 S.W. 264; State v. Manigan, 164 Iowa 434, 145 N.W. 869; Orin v. People, 68 Colo. 1, 188 P. 1114; State v. Cook, 212 Minn. 495, 4 N.W.2d 323; State v. Shetsky, 229 Minn. 566, 40 N.W.2d ...