People v. Donelson, 27595
| Decision Date | 24 October 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 27595,27595 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gerald O. DONELSON, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
J. D. MacFarlane, Atty. Gen., Jean E. Dubofsky, Deputy Atty. Gen., Edward G. Donovan, Sol. Gen., Lynne M. Ford, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.
Eugene F. Costello, Denver, for defendant-appellant.
The defendant was convicted of felony theft of rental property. We reverse and direct the trial court to grand defendant's motion for acquittal on the grounds of insufficiency of the evidence.
The defendant was charged with a class 4 felony under the statute which reads:
"A person commits theft of rental property if he . . . (h)aving lawfully obtained possession for temporary use of the personal property of another which is available only for hire, intentionally fails to reveal the whereabouts of or to return said property to the owner thereof or his representative or to the person from whom he has received it within seventy-two hours after the time at which he agreed to return it." Section 18-4-402(1)(b), C.R.S.1973. (See 1976 Supp. as to penalty amendment.)
The property involved was a refrigerated semitrailer, which was leased by the lessor to the defendant. Only three witnesses testified: the lessor, the lessor's attorney and the defendant. We relate the evidence which is in conflict in the light most favorable to the People.
The lessor and lessee entered into a lease, dated April 1, 1975, for a term commencing at that time and ending on October 15, 1975. The rental was to be eight cents for each mile traveled by the trailer and was to be paid at least every six weeks. The defendant took possession of the trailer at the time the lease commenced, which was the last occasion the lessor saw it.
It is noteworthy (although the matter is not mentioned by either of the parties) that, while the lease provides for default by reason of nonpayment of rental, insolvency of the lessee or subjection of the trailer to levy, it contains no provision prescribing any method of termination.
The facts contained in this paragraph are from the testimony of the lessor. The lessor telephoned the defendant on June 16, 1975. The defendant told the lessor that he had not sent any rental as he had been obliged to pay for extensive repair work on the trailer; that it was still in need of repairs; and that he was going to have to go into bankruptcy. The defendant also told the lessor that Andy Metcalf of San Diego, California had performed the repairs on the trailer and gave the lessor Metcalf's telephone number. About two months later the lessor went to San Diego and talked to Mr. Metcalf's wife. She advised him that one Ridenour had taken possession of the trailer. He then went to Ridenour's home and talked to Ridenour's wife.
No testimony was admitted as to statements made by Ridenour's wife.
The facts contained in this paragraph are from the testimony of the lessor's attorney. The attorney contacted the defendant by telephone about the middle of June, 1975, and requested that defendant return the trailer or pay the rental to date. The defendant told him that he was having financial difficulties and could not do so. The defendant suggested that he contact Andy Metcalf, who was doing business as M & M Trucking in San Diego. The attorney contacted Andy Metcalf and entered into negotiations as to a lease of the trailer. The attorney prepared a lease wherein Andy Metcalf, d/b/a M & M Trucking, was the lessee. The lease was dated August 26, 1975 and was for a term commencing September 1, 1975 and ending October 31, 1975. He transmitted the lease to Metcalf, whose lawyer later returned it unsigned, with the statement that Metcalf did not care to enter into it. The attorney never received any rentals from the defendant.
There was no other testimony as to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Moody
...element of the offense defined by this statute, to be proved by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt. See People v. Donelson, 194 Colo. 175, 570 P.2d 542 (1977). The gist of the offense is the failure to perform certain acts within seventy-two hours of a particular date. In prosecution......
-
People v. Washburn, s. 28210
...acts constitute a wrongful retention of the rental property. 3 This holding is in accord with our prior decision in People v. Donelson, 194 Colo. 175, 570 P.2d 542 (1977), in which we held that the culpable mental state in section 18-4-402(1)(b), C.R.S.1973, must be proved in order to susta......
- People v. Proctor, 27636