People v. Brown
Decision Date | 12 May 1988 |
Docket Number | No. 85CA0141,85CA0141 |
Citation | 761 P.2d 261 |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donald L. BROWN, Defendant-Appellant. . III |
Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Duane Woodard, Atty. Gen., Charles B. Howe, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Richard H. Forman, Sol. Gen., Patricia Hummons Clark, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.
David F. Vela, Colorado State Public Defender, Frances Smylie Brown, Jaydee K. Bachman, Deputy State Public Defenders, Denver, for defendant-appellant.
Defendant, Donald L. Brown, appeals a judgment of conviction entered upon a jury verdict of guilty of sexual assault on a child by one in a position of trust in violation of § 18-3-405(1) and (2)(b), C.R.S. . On April 20, 1987, in People v. Brown, 749 P.2d 436 (Brown I ), we reversed defendant's conviction. Thereafter, the supreme court vacated this court's judgment and remanded the case to us for reconsideration in light of People v. Wood, 743 P.2d 422, decided by it on October 5, 1987. On reconsideration, we affirm the judgment of conviction.
In parts I and II of Brown I, we agreed with defendant's contentions that the trial court committed reversible error in admitting into evidence hearsay statements of the child without complying with the safeguards provided in § 13-25-129, C.R.S., as then in effect. Part I pertained to the lack of notice of intention to offer the statements or to furnish the particulars of the statements. In part II we held that, because of those deficiencies, the hearing as to the reliability of the statements was inadequate.
We now conclude that parts I and II of Brown I were overruled by People v. Wood, supra. As in Wood, the People in the instant case did not comply strictly with the notice requirements. However, as stated in Wood, "because the defendant had adequate information from other sources, reversal is not required." Here, the hearsay statements contemplated were contained in the police report, and the names of the stepmother and the social worker were included in the list of People's witnesses submitted prior to trial. Thus, defendant had to have known that those two would testify at trial and, further, had to have known the gist of their testimony.
Also, under § 13-25-129, the court is required to find, in a hearing held outside the presence of the jury, that the time, content, and circumstances of the hearsay statements provide sufficient safeguards of reliability to warrant admission of the statements. Here, the trial court made detailed findings pursuant to this statute which are supported by...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Williams
... ... The Model 77 and a bullet recovered from a mattress at the crime scene were key pieces of evidence in both of the defendant's trials. During the defendant's second trial the prosecution, as it had in the first trial, called Cordell Brown, a Colorado Bureau of Investigations (CBI) lab agent, to testify. The district court recognized Brown as an expert in the fields of paint comparison, tool mark comparison, and firearms identification. Brown testified that he examined a smear of paint on the stock of the Model 77 and compared it ... ...
-
ARTICLE 25
...because the defendant was already aware of the substance of the testimony. People v. Wood, 743 P.2d 422 (Colo. 1987); People v. Brown, 761 P.2d 261 (Colo. App. 1988). A child who is not competent to testify is unavailable both within the meaning of subsection (1)(b)(II) and under the two-st......
-
ARTICLE 25 EVIDENCE GENERAL PROVISIONS
...because the defendant was already aware of the substance of the testimony. People v. Wood, 743 P.2d 422 (Colo. 1987); People v. Brown, 761 P.2d 261 (Colo. App. 1988). A child who is not competent to testify is unavailable both within the meaning of subsection (1)(b)(II) and under the two-st......
-
ARTICLE 3
...A stepparent is in a position of trust for purposes of this section. People v. Brown, 749 P.2d 436 (Colo. App. 1987); People v. Brown, 761 P.2d 261 (Colo. App. 1988). Jury could conclude that defendant was "in a position of trust" relative to the victim within the meaning of the applicable ......
-
ARTICLE 25 EVIDENCE GENERAL PROVISIONS
...because the defendant was already aware of the substance of the testimony. People v. Wood, 743 P.2d 422 (Colo. 1987); People v. Brown, 761 P.2d 261 (Colo. App. 1988). A child who is not competent to testify is unavailable both within the meaning of subsection (1)(b)(II) and under the two-st......