People v. Brinson, 85CA
| Decision Date | 02 April 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 85CA,85CA |
| Citation | 739 P.2d 897 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Kelly BRINSON, Defendant-Appellant. l353. . I |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Duane Woodard, Atty. Gen., Charles B. Howe, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Richard H. Forman, Sol. Gen., Robert M. Petrusak, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.
David F. Vela, Colorado State Public Defender, Linda Perkins, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, for defendant-appellant.
Defendant, Charles Brinson, appeals from the judgments of conviction for distribution, possession, and conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance. Defendant argues that the information charging him with the crimes for which he was convicted was fatally defective and that the trial court erred in refusing to grant a mistrial when its sequestration order was violated. We affirm.
Defendant first argues that the trial court lacked jurisdiction in this matter because the information filed against him did not allege, in each of its five counts, the county where each offense was committed.
Each count in the information listed and described the offense charged. None of the counts separately stated the location of the offenses. Nevertheless, following the fifth count, a separate sentence in the information alleged that: "Each foregoing offense was committed in, and/or is triable in, El Paso County, Colorado...."
Crim.P. 7(b)(2) lists the requisites of an information, and states, in pertinent part:
"The information shall be deemed technically sufficient and correct if it can be understood therefrom: ... (III) That the offense was committed within the jurisdiction of the court, or is triable therein...."
Each count of an information must be considered independently of any other count and must, itself, allege all of the material elements of the crime charged, so that each count charges a distinct and separate offense. People v. Moore, 200 Colo. 481, 615 P.2d 726 (1980). However, except where the location of the crime is, itself, an element of the offense, it need not be set forth in each count. See generally C. Torcia, Wharton's Criminal Procedure § 275 at 87 (12th ed. 1975) ()
Nevertheless, in order to confer jurisdiction upon the court, the information must contain an allegation of the place where the offense was committed, or where it is triable. In People v. Steiner, 640 P.2d 250 (Colo.App.1981), this court held that the lack of such an allegation was not cured by the wording of the caption of the information. That decision suggested, however, that such an allegation could be supplied by use of the technique of incorporation by reference.
Here, the separate allegation, which specifically referred to all of the previously alleged offenses, clearly advised defendant of the claimed location of the offenses and, therefore, met the technical requirements of Crim.P. 7(b)(2). Moreover, since this allegation referred to all of the counts, such reference had essentially the same effect as served by the technique of incorporation by reference. We conclude, therefore, that such allegation was sufficient. To rule otherwise would defeat the purpose of the rules of criminal procedure to "secure simplicity in procedure, fairness in administration, and the elimination of unjustifiable expense and delay." Crim.P. 2.
Defendant also argues that the trial court erred when it refused to grant a mistrial or to impose other sanctions because of an alleged violation of a sequestration order. Defendant claims that the sequestration order was violated when...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Melendez
...CRE 615. The court may order witnesses to remain outside the courtroom and not discuss the case with each other. People v. Brinson, 739 P.2d 897, 899 (Colo.App.1987). The Colorado sequestration rule is identical to the federal rule, so analysis of the rule by federal courts and commentators......
-
People v. Sherman, No. 98CA2254.
...The determination whether a sequestration order has been violated is within the sound discretion of the trial court. People v. Brinson, 739 P.2d 897 (Colo.App.1987). The defendant must show that the violation caused prejudice in order to establish an abuse of discretion. People v. Wood, 743......
-
People v. Villalobos, 04CA0552.
...witnesses' testimony, it may also prohibit witnesses from discussing the case with each other outside the courtroom. People v. Brinson, 739 P.2d 897, 899 (Colo. App.1987). Defendant argues that an attorney's discussion of one witness's testimony with a prospective witness violates CRE 615. ......