People v. Cochran, No. 25077
| Docket Nº | No. 25077 |
| Citation | 490 P.2d 684, 176 Colo. 364 |
| Case Date | November 15, 1971 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Colorado |
Page 684
v.
Timothy Patrick COCHRAN, also known as Timothy P. Cochran,
defendant-Appellee.
Carl Parlapiano, Dist. Atty., Gordon R. Cooper, Asst. Dist Atty., Pueblo, for plaintiff-appellant.
Rollie R. Rogers, Colo. State Public Defender, J. D. MacFarlane,[176 Colo. 365] Chief Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, Darol C. Biddle, Deputy State Public Defender, Pueblo, for defendant-appellee.
KELLEY, Justice.
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:
'* * * Although none of the jurors who testified said that at the time this experiment was conducted, anyone made any statement to the effect that Exhibit A smelled like marijuana, the Court will not presume that the jurors did not compare the odors emitted from the various substances burned and arrive at some conclusion from such comparison. The Court's reluctance to make such presumption stems from the facts that the principal issue in the case was whether or not Exhibit A was, in fact, marijuana. Such action on the part of the jurors constituted misconduct sufficient to require a new trial.'
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 [176 Colo. 366] trial, motions to quash, demurrers, pleas in bar, pleas in abatement, Motions in arrest of judgment, or where a statute is declared unconstitutional.'
Page 685
The defendant challenges the state's right to appeal relying upon C.A.R. 1(a) (1) which provides:
'(a) Matters...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Jefferson, s. 86SA464
...past 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 judgmen......
-
People v. Weller, 82SA413
...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. 2 In People v. Dillon, 655 P.2d 841 (Colo.1982), we held that a trial court i......
-
Levine v. Empire Sav. and Loan Ass'n, 74--012
...determine the rights of the parties involved. See Dusing v. Nelson, 7 [34 Colo.App. 238] 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 Rese......
-
State v. Cb Serv. Corp.., No. 08CA2092.
...this 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 a......
-
People v. Jefferson, Nos. 86SA464
...past 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 judgmen......
-
People v. Weller, No. 82SA413
...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. 2 In People v. Dillon, 655 P.2d 841 (Colo.1982), we held that a trial court i......
-
Levine v. Empire Sav. and Loan Ass'n, No. 74--012
...determine the rights of the parties involved. See Dusing v. Nelson, 7 [34 Colo.App. 238] 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 Rese......
-
State v. Cb Serv. Corp.., No. 08CA2092.
...this 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 a......