People v. Duncan, 24888
| Decision Date | 06 December 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 24888,24888 |
| Citation | 498 P.2d 941,176 Colo. 427 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George D. DUNCAN, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., John P. Moore, Duputy Atty. Gen., George E DeRoos, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.
Rollie R. Rogers, Colorado State Public Defender, J. D. MacFarlane, Chief Deputy State Public Defender, Kenneth J. Russell, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, for defendant-appellant.
Appellant, George Dalton Duncan, was convicted of aggravated robbery and sentenced to the penitentiary. From that judgment he brings his appeal to this Court. He will hereinafter be referred to as defendant.
On April 1, 1969, the Equity Savings and Loan Co. in Denver was robbed by two armed men. During the course of the robbery a police officer was wounded, one robber was killed, and the other escaped. On April 2, 1969, the defendant was arrested in Kansas by officers who had received an all points bulletin which described the Denver robbery and which requested officers to apprehend an automobile which matched the description of the car the defendant was driving. The vehicle was searched after the defendant was arrested and certain evidence discovered therein was seized by the police.
Prior to trial, defendant filed a motion to suppress this evidence on the ground that it was illegally seized in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. After holding a comprehensive hearing on the matter, the motion to suppress was denied by the trial court. During the trial the motion to suppress was renewed by the defendant and again denied by the trial court. The trial judge made no findings of fact in ruling on these two motions.
Defendant urges this Court to consider several arguments in this appeal. We need not address ourselves to defendant's contentions at this time, however, because the People confess error on the grounds that the trial court incorrectly failed to make findings of fact after ruling on defendant's two motions to suppress. We agree that this was error by the trial court.
It is the function of the trial court to determine the factual issues presented by a motion to suppress, and this in turn requires the trial judge to make findings of fact whenever he rules on a motion to suppress. People v. Ortega, Colo., 481 P.2d 727; People v. Reyes, Colo., 477 P.2d 790. Instead of making findings of fact, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Agee, 44476
...must state the basis of its decision." State v. Johnson, 16 Or.App. 560, 571, 519 P.2d 1053, 1058 (1974). See also People v. Duncan, 176 Colo. 427, 498 P.2d 941 (1971); People v. Steele, 29 Ill.App.3d 574, 331 N.E.2d 175 (1975); State v. Basden, 8 N.C.App. 401, 407, 174 S.E.2d 613 (1970). M......
-
People v. Johnson
...by the trial court. The trial court is required to make findings of fact whenever it rules on a motion to suppress, People v. Duncan, 176 Colo. 427, 498 P.2d 941 (1971), because legal conclusions without specific findings of fact render appellate review impossible. People v. Hoinville, 191 ......
-
People v. Hoinville
...court merely concluded that probable cause existed for Hoinville's arrest. Such a 'finding' is plainly not sufficient. People v. Duncan, 176 Colo. 427, 498 P.2d 941 (1971); People v. Jenkins, supra; People v. Ortega, supra. Without specific findings of fact, appellate review of Fourth Amend......
-
People v. Brazzel, 00SA308.
...v. Welsch, 740 P.2d 524, 526 (Colo.1987); People v. Martinez, 185 Colo. 278, 279-80, 523 P.2d 1405, 1406 (1974); People v. Duncan, 176 Colo. 427, 428, 498 P.2d 941, 942 (1971). It is the function of the trial court and not the reviewing court to weigh the evidence and determine the credibil......