People v. Albo

Decision Date06 March 1978
Docket NumberNo. 27601,27601
Citation195 Colo. 102,575 P.2d 427
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joe Pete ALBO, a/k/a Pete Cruz, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtColorado Supreme Court

J. D. MacFarlane, Atty. Gen., David A. Robbins, Deputy Atty. Gen., Edward G. Donovan, Sol. Gen., Sharon S. Metcalf, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.

Al H. Haas, Durango, for defendant-appellant.

ERICKSON, Justice.

The defendant-appellant was convicted by a jury of first-degree sexual assault. On appeal, the central issue is interpretation of the first-degree sexual assault statute. Section 18-3-402(1)(b), C.R.S.1973 (1976 Supp.), provides that a person who inflicts sexual penetration on a victim commits sexual assault in the first degree if:

"(b) The actor causes submission of the victim by threat of imminent death, serious bodily injury, extreme pain, or kidnapping, to be inflicted on anyone, and the victim believes that the actor has the present ability to execute these threats;"

The defendant asserts that the term "extreme pain," as set forth in the first-degree sexual assault statute, is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. As further grounds for reversal, the defendant contends that the information fails to charge an offense and that the prosecution failed to produce evidence which would sustain a conviction. We affirm.

I. The Facts

The victim in this case was a twenty-year-old waitress who lived with friends in a duplex in Durango. On the night of the alleged rape, she arrived home from work at approximately 10:30, and shortly thereafter she retired. At approximately 2:00 a. m., she was awakened by strange noises. She called out to determine whether it was one of the other occupants of the duplex and received an affirmative response. The intruder then entered her room and advised her that he was not going to rape her. The victim asked the intruder to leave and said that she didn't want to get hurt and didn't like pain. At that point, the defendant told her to move over and he would show her some pain. The victim was threatened with something that the defendant had around his waist and which emitted clicking sounds. She submitted to sexual intercourse and pretended to enjoy it, in an attempt to avoid the infliction of pain or injury. After intercourse, the defendant remained in bed with her and tried to arrange a meeting on another occasion. He then dressed and left.

The victim promptly reported the incident to the police, underwent a medical examination, and gave a full statement and description of the defendant. The police investigation produced a fingerprint on a window adjacent to the victim's room, which had been used to obtain entrance. The victim's description and the fingerprint provided a basis for the defendant's identification. The police saw the defendant on the following morning outside the police station wearing basically the same clothes which the victim asserted the defendant was wearing when he entered her bedroom.

II.

"Extreme Pain"

The term "extreme pain" is not so vague or overbroad as to render the first- degree sexual assault statute unconstitutional. Section 18-3-402(1)(b), C.R.S.1973 (1976 Supp.), includes threat of "extreme pain" as a measure of criminal conduct and as a gauge for determining whether the threat was the cause for the victim's submission to sexual intercourse.

In reviewing a constitutional challenge of a statute, we initially presume that the statute is constitutional. The defendant, in asserting his claim that the statute is unconstitutional, has the burden of proving unconstitutionality beyond a reasonable doubt. Howe v. People, 178 Colo. 248, 496 P.2d 1040 (1972). To determine whether the statute is unconstitutionally vague, we employ the well-established test which was set out in People v. Gonzales, 188 Colo. 272, 534 P.2d 626 (1975):

"(I)f the statute gives a fair description of conduct forbidden, and men of common intelligence can readily understand the meaning and application of the statute, then it will not be held to be unconstitutionally vague; conversely, if the statute is so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and application, then it must be held invalid in violation of the constitutional requirements of due process."

See also People v. Garcia, 189 Colo. ---, 541 P.2d 687 (1975).

The defendant's actions were clearly within the scope of conduct which the legislature intended to proscribe by statute. The statutory language here follows Section 213.1(1)(a) of the American Law Institute's Model Penal Code.

A similar term was in issue in Ramirez v. State, 518 S.W.2d 546 (Tex.Cr.App.1975), where the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, in considering the Texas aggravated assault statute, upheld the use of the term "physical pain" in the statutory definition of "bodily injury." The vagueness and due process arguments in Ramirez focused on the issue of whether pain is totally subjective and indeterminable. The Texas court recognized that "physical pain" is a term in common usage and that an ordinary person could determine what conduct to avoid. Comparable language was also upheld against vagueness attacks which were directed at two child abuse statutes. Compare Campbell v. State, 240 So.2d 298 (Fla.1970), appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question, 402 U.S. 936, 91 S.Ct. 1634, 29 L.Ed.2d 105 (1971) ("excessively chastised") with State v. Samter, 4 Or.App. 349, 479 P.2d 237 (1971) ("cruelly mistreats and maltreats").

The term "extreme pain" is one of ordinary and not technical usage. It was well within the jury's competence to determine whether the defendant here made the threats which were proscribed in the first-degree sexual assault statute.

III. Sufficiency of the Information

The defendant contends that the information failed to set forth the essential elements of first-degree sexual assault. His argument is based on the claim that, although the information is worded substantially in the language of the statute, the charge does not specify on whom the threatened extreme pain was to be inflicted. The information states that the defendant did "cause the submission of the said victim by threat of extreme pain. . . . " The contention is not sound.

The requisites of an information which are in issue here are set forth in Section...

To continue reading

Request your trial
36 cases
  • Rathke v. MacFarlane
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • 19 Julio 1982
    ...doubt. See, e.g., Bollier v. People, 635 P.2d 543 (Colo.1981); People ex rel. C. M., 630 P.2d 593 (Colo.1981); People v. Albo, 195 Colo. 102, 575 P.2d 427 (1978); Clark v. People, 176 Colo. 48, 488 P.2d 1097 (1971). The weight of the presumption of constitutionality is even greater when, as......
  • People v. Rodriguez
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • 11 Marzo 1996
    ...prejudiced. The defendant is entitled to reversal if he was prejudiced, surprised, or hampered in his defense." People v. Albo, 195 Colo. 102, 106, 575 P.2d 427, 429 (1978). The record before us indicates no prejudice of Rodriguez' "substantial rights," 28 nor does Rodriguez point to any. S......
  • People v. Castro
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • 24 Enero 1983
    ...see also, e.g., People v. McKnight, 626 P.2d 678 (Colo.1981); People v. Latsis, 195 Colo. 411, 578 P.2d 1055 (1978); People v. Albo, 195 Colo. 102, 575 P.2d 427 (1978); People v. Blue, In People ex rel. Russel v. District Court, supra, we upheld against a void for vagueness challenge the ex......
  • People v. Gutierrez
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • 19 Enero 1981
    ...has the burden of establishing the unconstitutionality of a statute, as applied, beyond a reasonable doubt, e. g., People v. Albo, 195 Colo. 102, 575 P.2d 427 (1978); People v. Gonzales, 188 Colo. 272, 534 P.2d 626 We must determine whether in prescribing a specific inflexible sentence to l......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • ARTICLE 3 OFFENSES AGAINST THE PERSON
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association C.R.S. on Family and Juvenile Law (CBA) Title 18 Criminal Code
    • Invalid date
    ...People v. Osborne, 973 P.2d 666 (Colo. App. 1998). The term "extreme pain" is one of ordinary and not technical usage. People v. Albo, 195 Colo. 102, 575 P.2d 427 (1978). Extreme pain measure of criminal conduct. The term "extreme pain" as used in subsection (1)(b) of this section is a meas......
  • ARTICLE 3
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association C.R.S. on Family and Juvenile Law (2022 ed.) (CBA) Title 18 Criminal Code
    • Invalid date
    ...People v. Osborne, 973 P.2d 666 (Colo. App. 1998). The term "extreme pain" is one of ordinary and not technical usage. People v. Albo, 195 Colo. 102, 575 P.2d 427 (1978). Extreme pain measure of criminal conduct. The term "extreme pain" as used in subsection (1)(b) of this section is a meas......
  • Chapter 1 - § 1.1 • THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Colorado DUI Benchbook (CBA) Chapter 1 Preliminary Matters
    • Invalid date
    ...for the same offense. See also Esquivel-Castillo v. People, 2016 CO 7; People v. Williams, 984 P.2d 56 (Colo. 1999); People v. Albo, 575 P.2d 427 (Colo. 1978); People v. Bergstrom, 544 P.2d 396 (Colo. 1975). "Even under the modern standard, an information that fails to charge an essential e......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT