People v. Cochran, 25077
| Decision Date | 15 November 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 25077,25077 |
| Citation | 490 P.2d 684,176 Colo. 364 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE on the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Timothy Patrick COCHRAN, also known as Timothy P. Cochran, defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Carl Parlapiano, Dist. Atty., Gordon R. Cooper, Asst. Dist Atty., Pueblo, for plaintiff-appellant.
Rollie R. Rogers, Colo. State Public Defender, J. D. MacFarlane, Chief Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, Darol C. Biddle, Deputy State Public Defender, Pueblo, for defendant-appellee.
The defendant, Timothy P. Cochran, was convicted of the unlawful possession of a narcotic drug, namely, cannabis sativa L. (marijuana). Following the verdict, defense counsel learned that during its deliberations the jury burned a small portion of the state's evidence and some substances introduced by the defendant in order to compare their odors.
In defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal, new trial and in arrest of judgment, the burning was alleged to constitute misconduct on the part of the jury. The trial court, after an evidentiary hearing, took the matter under advisement and thereafter in granting the motion for new trial, stated:
The state is seeking to set aside the court's order granting a new trial and to reinstate the verdict. If the state is properly here, it is by virtue of C.R.S.1963, 39--7--26 which in pertinent part provides:
'(2) Writs of error shall lie on behalf of the state, or the people, to review decisions of the trial court in any criminal case upon question of law arising upon the trial, motions to quash, demurrers, pleas in bar, pleas in abatement, Motions in arrest of judgment, or where a statute is declared unconstitutional.'
The defendant challenges the state's right to appeal relying upon C.A.R. 1(a) (1) which provides:
'(1) A final judgment of any district, superior, probate, or juvenile court in all actions or special proceedings whether governed by these rules or by the statutes;'
It is the defendant's position that the granting of a motion for new trial does not constitute 'a final judgment,' consequently, the ruling is not appealable.
Turning first to an analysis of 39--7--26(2), we...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Jefferson
...that trial court orders may not be appealed in the absence of a final judgment which terminates the prosecution. People v. Cochran, 176 Colo. 364, 366, 490 P.2d 684, 685 (1971) (no final judgment where defendant may be tried again on same charge). Further, we have defined final judgment "as......
-
People v. Weller
...Kassell. Judgment affirmed. 1 This court has determined that an order granting a new trial is an interlocutory order. People v. Cochran, 176 Colo. 364, 490 P.2d 684 (1971). Final judgments are described in C.R.Cr.P. 32(c).2 In People v. Dillon, 655 P.2d 841 (Colo.1982), we held that a trial......
-
Levine v. Empire Sav. and Loan Ass'n
...in order to completely determine the rights of the parties involved. See Dusing v. Nelson, 7 Colo. 184, 2 P. 922; Compare People v. Cochran, 176 Colo. 364, 490 P.2d 684. The basis for adherence to this definition has been to discourage piecemeal review of litigation. See Hamm v. Twin Lakes ......
-
State v. Cb Serv. Corp.., 08CA2092.
...issue, because the imposition of a procedural burden does not inevitably result in a final judgment. See, e.g., People v. Cochran, 176 Colo. 364, 367, 490 P.2d 684, 685 (1971)(an order granting a motion for a new trial is not a final judgment); Orcutt, 164 Colo. at 389, 393, 435 P.2d at 376......
-
How to Lose an Appeal Without Really Trying
...App. ___, ___ P.2d ___ (Colorado Lawyer, March 1975, p. 576). 2. See Dusing v. Nelson, 7 Colo. 184, 2 P. 922; compare People v. Cochran, 176 Colo. 364, 490 P.2d 684. 3. See, e.g., Weaver v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co., 146 Colo. 157, 360 P.2d 807. 4. See Hoen v. District Court, 159 Colo. 45......
-
Colorado Appellate Procedure: Part Ii
...the rights of the parties. 9. Colo. App. Rules, Rule 1(a)(1). See People in re G.L.T.,___ Colo.___, 493 P.2d 20 (1972); People v. Cochran, 490 P.2d 684 (1971); Zaragoza v. Ervin, 491 P.2d 1391 (Colo. App. 1971). However, the statutorily authorized appeal on behalf of the People to review tr......