People v. Carstensen
| Decision Date | 12 December 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 22450,22450 |
| Citation | 420 P.2d 820,161 Colo. 249 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff in Error, v. George CARSTENSEN, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
H. R. Harward, Dist. Atty., Bruce Johnson, Asst. Dist. Atty., Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., for plaintiff in error.
No appearance for defendant in error.
This is a writ of error brought on behalf of the People pursuant to C.R.S.1963, 39--7--26(2) to review a judgment of the district court which dismissed a charge of burglary against defendant in error, George Carstensen.
The record discloses that Carstensen, as defendant in the trial court, was charged with three criminal counts, viz. burglary, larceny, and receiving stolen goods.
The evidence is that the defendant had been hired by one Riffey to paint his apartment in a hotel building in Canon City; that defendant lived across the hall and each time he worked in Riffey's abode, Riffey would unlock his door to let Carstensen in, but would not remain while the work was being done. Sometime after the work was completed, Riffey discovered that a television set, which he had stored in his apartment, was missing; it was later found by the police in the defendant's new place of residence.
Carstensen first moved for a dismissal of the burglary count following the People's case. The motion was denied. He then took the witness stand and testified that his work in the apartment went on for a month and that he took the television set after he had worked there about two weeks.
At the close of all the evidence, on motion, the counts of burglary and receiving were dismissed, and the defendant then pled guilty to the charge of larceny.
In granting the dismissal, the trial court reasoned that the defendant had permission to enter Riffey's apartment to paint and that he was still engaged in the overall transaction when the theft occurred, therefore, he could not be guilty of either burglary or receiving stolen goods.
It is urged that we disapprove the judgment in view of All the evidence presented and that we overrule our decision in Stowell v. People, 104 Colo. 255, 90 P.2d 520 (1939). It is also urged that it was solely a question for the jury as to whether defendant's testimony should have been believed, i.e., that it was a question of fact as to when and how the set was taken.
As to the first issue, we held in Stowell that had the defendant not been furnished with a key and had he not been given...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hall, 82,090.
...of burglary. Intent at the time of entry in Colorado is not the sole element of burglary under our statute." People v. Carstensen, 161 Colo. 249, 251, 420 P.2d 820 (1966). The Harper court observed that under the California rule, any theft that occurs inside a building would be elevated to ......
-
State v. Harper, 62196
...of burglary. Intent at the time of entry in Colorado is not the sole element of burglary under our statute...." People v. Carstensen, 161 Colo. 249, 251, 420 P.2d 820 (1966). Under the California rule, any theft that occurs inside a building would be elevated to a burglary because no one wo......
-
State v. Lozier
...cases on the grounds that their state statutes require more than "entry" with intent to commit a crime therein. People v. Carstensen, 161 Colo. 249, 420 P.2d 820 (1966); State v. Taylor, 17 Or.App. 499, 522 P.2d 499 (1974); State v. Rogers, 83 N.M. 676, 496 P.2d 169 (N.M.App.1972); Smith v.......
-
State v. Blair
...for a burglary charge. See State v. Taylor, 17 Or.App. 499, 522 P.2d 499; State v. Rogers, 83 N.M. 676, 496 P.2d 169; People v. Carstensen, 161 Colo. 249, 420 P.2d 820; Smith v. State, Alaska, 362 P.2d 1071; People v. Jones. 50 A.D.2d 750, 376 N.Y.S.2d The interpretation by the majority wil......