Patton v. People
| Decision Date | 05 November 1923 |
| Docket Number | 10710. |
| Citation | 221 P. 1086,74 Colo. 322 |
| Parties | PATTON v. PEOPLE. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Jan. 7, 1924.
Department 3.
Error to District Court, Arapahoe County; Samuel W. Johnson, Judge.
William Patton was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he brings error and applies for a supersedeas.
Supersedeas denied, and judgment affirmed.
Frank D. Taggart, of Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Russell W. Fleming, Atty. Gen., and Harold Clark Thompson, Asst Atty. Gen., for the State.
The plaintiff in error, William Patton, hereinafter designated the defendant, was convicted of the crime of murder of the first degree, and sentenced to imprisonment for life.
The defendant brings the case here on writ of error, and asks that the same be made a supersedeas.
The thirty-seven assignments of error are copies of the grounds set forth in defendant's motion for new trial in the court below. There is no assignment of error based upon the action of the court in overruling defendant's motion for new trial. We are not required to consider, on review questions not mentioned in, nor covered by, an assignment of error. Hicks v. Pack Lock Bolt Co. et al., 72 Colo. 480, 481, 211 P. 371; Rice v. People, 55 Colo. 506 511, 136 P. 74; Pettit v. Mayhew et al., 43 Colo. 274, 276, 95 P. 939.
However, we have examined the record with great care, and find no error requiring a reversal of the case. The principal contentions of defendant are: (1) That the evidence was wholly insufficient to convict defendant of murder of the first degree, in that the evidence failed to show malice, deliberation, and premeditation. (2) That the court erred in refusing to grant the defendant a change of venue. (3) That the court erred in the admission and rejection of testimony. Other errors complained of will be noticed in the course of this opinion.
The evidence shows that defendant and two brothers became engaged in a fight at Logantown with three soldiers from Ft. Logan, Fields, Meeter, and Menschew, the deceased. The fight lasted, in all, about 20 minutes, but during its progress a lull occurred when the defendant and deceased shook hands and the trouble seemed to have ended. A few moments later the fight was resumed, and it was during this part of the fighting that defendant shot Menschew with a 45-caliber revolver, killing him instantly. In the early part of the fight defendant hit the deceased over the head with the revolver. There is evidence that immediately after the shooting defendant said: 'That is the way we get rid of those kind of men.' The defendant, at the trial, contended that he shot Menschew in self-defense, and there is evidence that the deceased and Meeter were pursuing defendant, and that he was trying to get away. The evidence was conflicting, but, after a thorough examination of all the evidence, we find there was ample to sustain the verdict, and we cannot disturb it.
Defendant assigns error on the refusal of the court to grant him a change of venue, but the record discloses that he saved no exception, at the time, to the ruling. The court, however, committed no error in refusing to grant the change. The granting or refusing of a change of venue on the ground of prejudice of the inhabitants is in the discretion of the trial court, and it does not appear that the court abused its discretion.
Giacomozzi v. People, 72 Colo. 13, 209 P. 798.
Defendant contends that the court erred in admitting evidence, for the purpose of affecting his credibility as a witness, that defendant had previously been convicted of a misdemeanor. This question has been decided by this court adversely to the defendant's contention. Hoffman v. People, 72 Colo. 552, 558, 212 P. 848.
The defendant insists that the court erred in admitting the evidence of Lewis T. Reiter, who was called as a rebuttal witness, because his name had not been indorsed on the information. It is sufficient to say that no objection whatever appears to have been made by the defendant, at the time this witness was called to the stand, nor was any objection made to any part of his testimony, on the ground that his name had not been indorsed upon the information, nor was the court's attention, in any manner, called to the fact that his name was not so indorsed. Manifestly we cannot consider this assignment of error.
There was no error in admitting the evidence of the witness Quinnell. The evidence shows that Quinnell was a regularly licensed and practicing physician and surgeon; also that he was a commissioned surgeon in the United States army, and as such was not prohibited from performing his lawful duties in this state. He was not required to have a license to practice medicine in Colorado. Compiled Laws 1921, § 4537.
The defendant complains that the court erred in not granting...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Efsiever v. People, 14378.
...Burgess, 99 Colo. 307, 62 P.2d 465; Wilson v. Giem, 90 Colo. 27, 5 P.2d 880; Shepherd v. People, 75 Colo. 251, 225 P. 221; Patton v. People, 74 Colo. 322, 221 P. 1086. True, Supreme Court Rule 35 says: 'Counsel will confined to a discussion of the errors stated, but the court may, in its di......
-
Rodriguez v. People, 22766
...638, announced February 10, 1969, Sharp v. People, 90 Colo. 356, 9 P.2d 483, Abshier v. People, 87 Colo. 507, 289 P. 1081, Patton v. People,74 Colo. 322, 221 P. 1086, Goldberger v. People, 45 Colo. 327, 101 P. 407. However, defendant cites Hockley v. People, 30 Colo. 119, 69 P. 512, where t......
-
Daugherty v. People
... ... discretion in the matter. In this we think the defendant is ... mistaken. We think it was within the discretion of the court ... to grant or refuse the motion. Andrews v. People, 33 Colo ... 193, 204, 79 P. 1031, 108 Am.St.Rep. 76; Patton v. People, 74 ... Colo. 322, 221 P. 1086 ... In ... Andrews v. People, supra, the record discloses that no ... counter affidavits were filed, and only one affidavit filed ... on behalf of defendant; yet this court held that it was ... within the discretion of the court to grant or ... ...
-
Hopkins v. People
... ... wisely lodged in the discretion of the trial court, and, in ... the absence of abuse, the order will not be disturbed ... [Citing cases.] No abuse of discretion appears here.' ... See, also, Giacomozzi v. People, 72 Colo. 13, 15, ... 209 P. 798; Patton v. People, 74 Colo. 322, 325, 221 ... P. 1086; Wilder v. People, 86 Colo. 35, 42, 278 P ... Under ... the authority of all of our decisions, there was no error ... committed in denying the motion for a change of venue ... 2 ... Defendant's counsel had exercised his tenth ... ...