Paine v. People
Decision Date | 03 June 1940 |
Docket Number | 14662. |
Citation | 106 Colo. 258,103 P.2d 686 |
Parties | PAINE v. PEOPLE. |
Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
In Department.
Error to District Court, Bent County; David M. Ralston, Judge.
Fred Paine was convicted of larceny, and he brings error.
Reversed.
Wilkie Ham, of Las Animas, for plaintiff in error.
Byron G. Rogers, Atty. Gen., and Gerald E. McAuliffe, Asst. Atty Gen., for defendant in error.
Plaintiff in error Paine, to whom we will refer as defendant, Frank Burchett, and Aubrey Paine, were jointly charged with the larceny of a calf, the property of Jim Allen. Defendant was granted a separate trial, which resulted in a verdict of guilty. Thereafter motion for new trial was overruled and defendant was sentenced to a term of not less than eighteen months and not more than three years in the penitentiary. To reverse this judgment the defendant prosecutes this proceeding in error.
To establish its case the people proved the loss of several head of cattle, including the calf described in the information by the prosecuting witness; fixed the presence of the defendant in the vicinity of the place where an animal had been butchered; introduced in evidence a hide with the brand partly cut out, found nearby, which the prosecuting witness identified as being from the calf allegedly stolen; and produced a number of witnesses who testified to admissions of guilt made by defendant. Defendant, who took the stand in his own behalf, admitted that he was present when the calf was shot by his codefendant Burchett, but testified that the latter at the time asserted ownership of the animal and that such portion of the meat as defendant received after assisting in the butchering was in part payment of a pre-existing debt owed him by Burchett. Wilkie Ham, the attorney who solely conducted the case for the defendant, appeared as the first witness in the latter's behalf. His testimony was intended to impeach the evidence given by the prosecuting witness concerning his identification of the hide. Mr. Ham, who testified on no other subject, stated that in a conversation at which Ham Burchett and the prosecuting witness were present, the latter had admitted that when the hide was first discovered he was unable to identify it as being from one of his animals. Upon cross-examination of Mr. Ham the following transpired:
'
'
'Mr. Mabry: That is all.
'Mr. Ham: I move that all of that about the attorneys, Johnson and myself, be stricken, as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial.
'The Court: Well, there is part of it, at least, is immaterial.
'Mr. Ham: All right.
'(Witness excused).'
The defendant asserts that the trial court committed prejudicial error in permitting the people thus to bring to the attention of the jury the disposition of the case against the codefendant Burchett. We are satisfied that this contention is sound. 'Where two persons have been jointly indicted for the same offense, but are separately tried, a judgment of conviction against one of them is not competent on the trial of the other, inasmuch as his conviction is no evidence either of joint action or of the guilt of accused.' 16 C.J. 670, § 1341. In addition to the authorities there cited in support of this statement, see the recent cases of LeRoy v. Government of Canal Zone, 5 Cir., 81 F.2d 914; Walding v. State, 135 Tex.Crim. 430, 120 S.W.2d 1052; Giles v. State, 109 Tex.Crim. 234, 4 S.W.2d 66. Since the record of the conviction of the codefendant Burchett would not be admissible in evidence against the defendant here, it would seem certain that testimony relating to the fact was incompetent. As is said in State v. Bowker, 26 Or. 309, 38 P. 124, 125: 'Under any other rule the guilt of a defendant jointly indicted with another, if he should happen to be tried subsequent to his codefendant, might depend upon the result of a trial over which he had no control, to which he was not a party, and in which he had no right to appear or make a defense.' In the case of Webster v. Commonwealth, 223 Ky. 369, 3 S.W.2d 754, 756, J. D. Webster, his brother Carl, and cousin Oval, were indicted for the murder of one Ed Mire. The defendant J. D. Webster was granted a separate trial in the course of which his codefendant Oval was called as a witness for the defense. On the cross-examination of Oval, the following occurred:
In the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Welch v. People
... ... doubt thereof, we will go beyond the abstract and assignment ... and notice any reversible [115 Colo. 47] error disclosed by ... the record which is probably responsible for depriving ... defendant of a fair and impartial trial. Reppin v ... People, 95 Colo. 192, 34 P.2d 71; Paine v ... People, 106 Colo. 258, 103 P.2d 686; Leech v ... People, 112 Colo. 120, 146 P.2d 346. Defendant's ... contention is that this assignment falls in that class. Our ... conclusion is that, considering its general character, the ... slight probability of its having influenced the ... ...
-
State v. Kerley
...trial, testimony that Powell had been convicted or had pleaded guilty to the same charge would not have been competent. Paine v. People, 106 Colo. 258, 103 P.2d 686; Leech v. People, 112 Colo. 120, 146 P.2d 346; State v. Jackson, 47 N.M. 415, 143 P.2d 875; United States v. Hall, 2 Cir., 178......
-
Schneider v. People, 16023.
...104 Colo. 594, 94 P.2d 453; Coates v. People, 106 Colo. 483, 106 P.2d 354; Torbert v. People, 113 Colo. 294, 156 P.2d 128; Paine v. People, 106 Colo. 258, 103 P.2d 686; Williams v. People, 114 Colo. 207, 158 P.2d 447, A.L.R. 509; Perry v. People, 116 Colo. 440, 181 P.2d 439. The general rul......
-
Swaringen v. Swanstrom
... ... by the pleadings. I.C.A. § 15-223, as amended 1943 S.L ... p. 46, Chap. 18; People v. Whitworth, 1925, 41 Idaho ... 225, 238 P. 306 ... An ... appellate court will not consider any question not put in ... issue by the ... 695, ... 203 P. 745, 751; Holbrook v. Seagrave, 228 Mass. 26, ... 116 N.E. 889, 890; Cox v. Kee, 107 Neb. 587, 186 ... N.W. 974, 975; Paine v. People, 106 Colo. 258, 103 ... P.2d 686, 689; In re Norton's Estate, 202 Iowa ... 374, 210 N.W. 438, 439; Bogart v. Brazee, 331 Ill ... 160, ... ...
-
Attorney-client Privilege-the Colorado Law
...P.2d 1246, 1251 (1974) (attorney testified as assistant secretary of the corporation and authenticated documents); Paine v. People, 106 Colo. 258, 103 P.2d 686 (1940) (attorney testified for client in criminal defense); Young, supra, note 26 (one of the attorneys for Young testified for the......
-
Article 4. Rule-Making and Licensing Procedures By State Agencies [Details]
...57 Colo. 74 , 141 P. 132 (1914); Sapero v. State Board of Medical Examiners, 90 Colo. 568 , 11 P.2d 555 (1932); Paine v. People, 106 Colo. 258 , 103 P.2d 686 (1940); Prouty v. Heron, 127 Colo. 168 , 255 P.2d 755 (1953); Colorado State Board of Nurse Examiners v. Hohu, 129 Colo. 195 , 268 P.......