People v. Atencio
| Decision Date | 23 December 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 26050,26050 |
| Citation | 529 P.2d 636,187 Colo. 226 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ralph E. ATENCIO, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
John P. Moore, Atty. Gen., John E. Bush, Deputy Atty. Gen., Tennyson W. Grebenar, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.
Rollie R. Rogers, Colo. State Public Defender, James F. Dumas, Jr., Chief Deputy State Public Defender, Lee Belstock, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, for defendant-appellant.
The defendant, Ralph E. Atencio, elected to be tried by the court and was convicted of possession of heroin, a narcotic drug. C.R.S.1963, 48--5--2. In his motion for a judgment of acquittal, the defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction of possession of heroin and that the district attorney failed to establish the chain of custody with respect to the contraband. A motion for a judgment of acquittal was denied, and the defendant appeals. We affirm.
Possession may be proved by showing that the defendant exercised dominion and control over the contraband substance. People v. Storr, Colo., 527 P.2d 878 (1974). The trial judge, as the trier of the fact, had the responsibility of resolving conflicts in the evidence. In determining whether there was sufficient evidence to establish dominion and control, we will not substitute our judgment as to the weight of the evidence or the credibility of the witnesses for that of the trial judge. Our inquiry must be whether the district attorney established a prima facie case of possession. See Digiallonardo v. People, 175 Colo. 560, 488 P.2d 1109 (1971). As we announced in People v. Bennett, Colo., 515 P.2d 466 (1973):
'The issue before the trial judge is whether the relevant evidence, both direct and circumstantial, when viewed as a whole and in the light most favorable to the prosecution, is substantial and sufficient to support a conclusion by a reasonable mind that the defendant is guilty of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.'
See People v. Marques, Colo., 520 P.2d 113 (1974).
Gauged in the light of our standard, the evidence was sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The facts in this case are similar to those which we find in every 'dropsy' case. The police were told by an informant that the defendant had just sold some heroin at the Joy Lounge and that the informant had seen the sale take place. When the police responded to the tip, they saw the defendant and another individual in the parking lot of the Joy Lounge.
Detective Pietrafesco, who knew the defendant, called to him and saw the defendant spit something from his mouth and kick it under an automobile. Both the defendant and his companion were stopped, and a balloon containing heroin was recovered from beneath the car. The defendant denied possession, and admittedly, the evidence offered by the prosecution and that presented by the defense was in conflict. Under the circumstances, it was the duty of the trial judge, as the trier of the fact, to resolve the conflict. The determination of the factual dispute was within the province of the trial judge and is not subject to review by this court.
Accordingly, the defendant's motion for a judgment of acquittal was properly denied.
The defendant also asserts that the trial court erroneously admitted in evidence the heroin that came from the balloon. He claims the chain of evidence was incomplete because the custodian was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kogan v. People
...to weigh conflicting evidence, judge the credibility of witnesses, and draw reasonable inferences from the evidence. People v. Atencio, 187 Colo. 226, 529 P.2d 636 (1974); Garcia v. People, 172 Colo. 329, 473 P.2d 169 (1970); Bean v. People, 164 Colo. 593, 436 P.2d 678 (1968). A different s......
-
People v. Sutherland, 82SA373
...a chain of custody which insures that the evidence offered is in the same condition as when it was obtained. People v. Atencio, 187 Colo. 226, 529 P.2d 636 (1974). See also CRE 901. "[T]he burden is upon the party offering the evidence to show to the satisfaction of the court, with reasonab......
-
People v. Rodriguez
...supreme court and divisions of this court have required a showing of a sufficient chain of custody. See, e.g. , People v. Atencio , 187 Colo. 226, 229, 529 P.2d 636, 638 (1974) (explaining that "[t]he general rule is that the prosecution must establish a chain of custody" to authenticate ev......
-
People v. McClendon, 26261
...a prima facie case of second-degree burglary against McClendon. See People v. Durbin, Colo., 529 P.2d 630 (1974); People v. Atencio, Colo., 529 P.2d 636 (1974); People v. Marques, Colo., 520 P.2d 113 (1974); Digiallonardo v. People, 175 Colo. 560, 488 P.2d 1109 (1971). Our adversary system ......
-
The Use of Demonstrative Evidence in Criminal Cases
...426 P.2d 548 (1967). 5. Jones v. People, 146 Colo. 40, 360 P.2d 686 (1961). 6. Washington v. People, supra, note 3. 7. People v. Atencio, 187 Colo. 226, 529 P.2d 636 (1974). 8. People v. Smith, 182 Colo. 228, 512 P.2d 269 (1973). 9. Id. 10. People v. Sanchez, 184 Colo. 25, 518 P.2d 818 (197......