Padilla v. People, 20858
| Decision Date | 21 December 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 20858,20858 |
| Citation | 397 P.2d 741,156 Colo. 186 |
| Parties | James Edward PADILLA, Plaintiff in Error, v. PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Bert A. Gallegos, Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Atty. Gen., John P. Moore, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for defendant in error.
Plaintiff in error was defendant in a crimnal action in the Huerfano District Court wherein he was found guilty of assault with intent to rape and sentenced to the state penitentiary. Motion for a new trial was denied.
On writ of error defendant presents five points in the summary of his argument for reversal of the judgment of conviction. They may be grouped under two headings, as follows: 1. that hearsay evidence, over objection, was admitted by the court; 2. that the court admitted, through witnesses from the FBI, evidence and exhibits, all of which, it is claimed, were irrelevant, since they did not constitute any proof as to the commission of the crime charged.
There is no merit to the points relief upon by the defendant seeking to set aside his conviction, and we hold that no error was committed by the court.
First, as to the hearsay testimony, defendant has not specified by reference to folio numbers as required by our rules, nor were there statements in the brief directing us to the testimony he characterizes as 'hearsay and inadmissible.' We have searched the record and presume that the defendant refers to testimony of the father of the prosecutrix in which he related certain statements made to him by his daughter. As to this evidence, the father first described his daughter's appearance, clothed only in her coat, and with bruises and contusions visible on her person; indicating that she had been in a struggle. He further testified as to the complaint made to him that she had been assaulted.
In criminal trials for rape--and this would apply equally as well in a case where rape was attempted but not consummated--the courts are unanimous in holding that it may be shown by the testimony of the prosecuting witness or that of other witnesses that the alleged victim made complaint of the outrage soon after its commission for the purpose of corroborating her testimony but not as independent evidence of the offense charged. Davis v. People, 112 Colo. 452, 150 P.2d 67; Donaldson v. People, 33 Colo. 333, 80 P. 906; 44 Am.Jur., p. 952, sec. 82.
Evidence of the failure of the person assaulted to make complaint soon after the commission of the outrage is a circumstance which tends to discredit her testimony....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Clawson
...denied, 429 U.S. 898, 97 S.Ct. 263, 50 L.Ed.2d 182; People v. Allen, 41 Cal.App.3d 196, 115 Cal.Rptr. 839 (1974); Padilla v. People, 156 Colo. 186, 397 P.2d 741 (1964); People v. Di Giacomo, 71 Ill.App.3d 56, 27 Ill.Dec. 232, 388 N.E.2d 1281 (1979); Commonwealth v. Tarver, 369 Mass. 302, 34......
-
Reed v. State
...based on an examination of hair, an FBI expert was permitted to testify to a positive identification in Padilla v. People, 156 Colo. 186, 397 P.2d 741 (1964), where the court stated: "We fail to comprehend how defendant could characterize it as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial. One of......
-
State v. Butler
...in three of the cases, the courts do not address the lack of scientific foundation for the expert opinions. See Padilla v. People, 397 P.2d 741, 743 (Colo. 1964); People v. Buie, 606 N.E.2d 279, 287 (Ill. App. 1992); State v. Earley, 373 A.2d 162, 165 (R.I. 1977). Because the expert opinion......
-
People v. Gallegos
...tending to prove the promptness of the victim's complaint to the police is admissible corroboration evidence. Padilla v. People, 156 Colo. 186, 397 P.2d 741 (1964); People v. Lowe, 39 Colo.App. 312, 565 P.2d 1352 (1977). However, permissible police testimony is restricted to the mere fact o......
-
ARTICLE 3
...alleged victim made complaint of the outrage soon after its commission for the purpose of corroborating her testimony. Padilla v. People, 156 Colo. 186, 397 P.2d 741 (1964). Evidence of the failure of the person assaulted to make complaint soon after the commission of the outrage is a circu......
-
ARTICLE 3 OFFENSES AGAINST THE PERSON
...alleged victim made complaint of the outrage soon after its commission for the purpose of corroborating her testimony. Padilla v. People, 156 Colo. 186, 397 P.2d 741 (1964). Evidence of the failure of the person assaulted to make complaint soon after the commission of the outrage is a circu......