People v. Bright

• Decision Date: 22 June 1925
• Docket Number: 11146.
• Citation: 77 Colo. 563,238 P. 71
• Parties: PEOPLE v. BRIGHT.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

238 P. 71

77 Colo. 563

PEOPLE v. BRIGHT.

No. 11146.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

June 22, 1925

Error to District Court, Yuma County; H. E. Munson, Judge.

William Bright was prosecuted for living with a woman in an open state of adultery and fornication. The case was dismissed and the People, by the District Attorney, bring error.

Judgment disapproved.

Roy T Johnson, Dist. Atty., of Sterling, and Samuel Chutkow, of Akron, for the People.

SHEAFOR J.

The information in this case charged that William Bright and Louise Berg, in Yuma county, from the 1st day of August 1923, to the 1st day of September, 1923 unlawfully and wantonly did live together in an open state of adultery; the parties being married, but not to each other.

The information was filed under section 6837, C. L. 1921, which provides, inter alia, that 'any man and woman who shall live together in an open state of adultery or fornication, or adultery and fornication,' shall upon conviction be punished as therein provided; and further provides:

'This offense shall be sufficiently proved by circumstances which raise the presumption of cohabitation and unlawful intimacy.'

The defendant, Bright, only was placed upon trial. At the conclusion of people's evidence defendant moved for a directed verdict. The court did not direct a verdict, but dismissed the case. The district attorney brings the case here, as he may do under section 7113, C. L. 1921. The evidence shows, in a general way, the following facts concerning the conduct of the defendant and Louise Berg during the month of August, 1923: One evening they registered at a rooming house in Sterling, Logan county, as Mr. Quinton and daughter, and were assigned to a room containing two beds. The hotel bill was paid by defendant, and while there she called him 'papa' in the presence of Mrs. Miller. The next morning, about 1:30 o'clock, three police officers entered the room occupied by defendant and the woman, and found him dressed only in his underwear and she in her nightgown. Their personal belongings were scattered promiscuously about the room. Appearances indicated that only one bed had been occupied. Two or three days later the parties were together at a circus in Sterling, and on the night following were on the streets of Sterling.

This evidence, while it relates to occurrences in Logan county, was introduced for the purpose of showing the adulterous inclination and disposition of the parties.

During the early part of August, defendant and Mrs. Berg drove into Yuma about 2 o'clock in the morning, registered at the Red Cross Rooming House, and were assigned two adjoining rooms having a door between. Shortly after entering the rooming house both were seen in one of the rooms. Defendant was sitting on the side of the bed, his shirt and collar off, apparently undressing, while Mrs. Berg was standing in front of the mirror, with her waist off, combing her hair. Defendant checked out the next morning, but Mrs. Berg remained for several days. The parties were frequently seen driving together in Yuma county and in the town of Yuma; also taking ice cream together in a drug store. The evidence tended to show great solicitude for Mrs. Berg on the part of defendant. At one time he directed the town marshal of Yuma to arrest one Elmwood, asserting that he had assaulted Mrs. Berg, but later directed that the man be released. At Wray he said to an official that he had a letter from a lady friend of his, saying she had been insulted by a man in Yuma. The same day in Yuma defendant called Officer Goddard to witness a conversation between defendant and one Randall, in which defendant accused Randall of insulting Mrs. Berg, and said to him, 'Don't let it happen again. You get that?' Defendant was sheriff of Yuma county during this time. At one time he, in company with Mrs. Berg, rented a room in a private house in Wray. He took her grips to the house, and on the following day called there to see her. In the afternoon he took her out, and they returned together about 11 p. m. The day following he went to see her again and they went to her room. Later they went out, and Mrs. Berg returned about 9 o'clock that night. On Saturday night they went to a dance together. Sunday night at 9 o'clock defendant was in Mrs. Berg's room. They went together that night to the kitchen, where Mrs. Berg washed her hair, the defendant remaining there with her until her task was completed, when they returned to her room, where they remained for some time. Then they went into town, returning about 10 p. m., and went to her room again. Defendant remained with her in the room until about 11 or 12 o'clock, when he came down and went away. Monday afternoon defendant went again to the house, and was with Mrs. Berg in the dining room, where she was washing. On this occasion Mrs. Gibson, the landlady, said to Bright she did not know what to think of his conduct. The defendant came again to the house on Wednesday evening, and they went away together, saying they were going to a dance. It was late when Mrs. Berg came back. Again on Thursday defendant came to the house both in the afternoon and in the evening; that evening he took her away. When defendant came to this house to see Mrs. Berg, he did not knock or rap on the door for admittance, but simply walked in, and, if she was not in the lower part of the house, he went to her room above stairs. For three days Mrs. Berg worked in a restaurant, and during that time defendant ate several meals there, frequently talking with her, and on one occasion defendant reprimanded Mrs. Lawrence, who conducted the restaurant, for the way she treated Mrs. Berg, saying that Mrs. Lawrence did not treat her right and did not pay her sufficient wages.

These parties were together at Remington's summer resort one evening dancing, and another evening skating. Remington said to defendant that 'it was a devil of a thing for him to try to do something like that,' to which defendant made no answer. One Saturday night defendant called Mrs. Remington out to his car, introduced her to Mrs. Berg, and asked her to take Mrs. Berg into the dance hall, saying he could not take her in because his family was there. On another occasion when they were skating defendant objected because three other men were there skating and playing with Mrs. Berg, and told her to call them down, or he would.

The trial court, in dismissing the case, said to the jury:

'I think that such circumstances have been proved as would warrant the jury in determining or finding that, if it were submitted to you, the defendant was guilty of adultery, but I am satisfied that there is no competent evidence here that would justify any jury in finding that they lived together, cohabiting as husband and wife. The living together which the court understands the statute to mean, cohabiting together, is under the same roof or under such conditions as husband and wife usually live, not secretly visiting together, not

...