People v. Galloway, 82CA1201
| Decision Date | 10 November 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 82CA1201,82CA1201 |
| Citation | 677 P.2d 1380 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brett C. GALLOWAY, Defendant-Appellant. . I |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Duane Woodard, Atty. Gen., Charles B. Howe, Deputy Atty. Gen., Richard H. Forman Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., John Milton Hutchins, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.
David F. Vela, Colorado State Public Defender, Jody Sorenson Theis, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, for defendant-appellant.
Defendant appeals from an order of revocation of a deferred judgment and sentence entered pursuant to § 16-7-403(1), C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl.Vol. 8). He contends that two witnesses were incompetent to testify and that the evidence was insufficient to establish the alleged violation of the terms of the deferred judgment. We affirm.
Defendant pled guilty to attempted second degree burglary in exchange for the deferred judgment. Pursuant to the trial court's authority under this arrangement, the defendant was ordered to undergo mental health treatment. One of the conditions of the deferred judgment was that the defendant "participate and cooperate fully in any program involving professional assistance and counseling."
In August 1982 the defendant was undergoing treatment at the Fort Logan Mental Health Center. He became embroiled in an argument with a roommate concerning whether to turn out the lights. The defendant grabbed a metal bar and struck the roommate, causing serious lacerations. Defendant asserted that he acted in self-defense, but this was denied by the victim and another roommate.
Following this incident, a complaint was filed alleging that the defendant had violated the deferred judgment by failing to cooperate with his treatment program.
Citing People v. Coca, 39 Colo.App. 264, 564 P.2d 431 (1977), defendant contends that the trial court erred in failing to strike the testimony of the victim and the other roommate because they were incompetent to testify. He argues that both were schizophrenic and the victim admitted to past hallucinations. See § 13-90-106(1)(a), C.R.S.1973. We reject this contention.
Unlike the situation in People v. Coca, supra, the witnesses here were never adjudicated insane. Consequently, they were presumed to be competent and the defendant carried the burden to prove otherwise. People v. Trujillo, 40 Colo.App. 220, 577 P.2d 297 (1977); People v. Coca, supra. The trial court has wide latitude in determining competency and its finding may not be altered unless there was an abuse of discretion. People v. Trujillo, supra.
Although the trial court did not make specific findings concerning the witnesses' competency, it implicitly found them competent by denying the defendant's motion to dismiss at the close of the prosecution's evidence. That motion was predicated, in part, on the alleged incompetency of the witnesses' testimony and was the first time the issue of incompetency was raised.
Under the circumstances, the trial court did not abuse its discretion. The trial court heard the witnesses testify and observed their demeanor. The record indicates that both witnesses were responsive to questions and recalled the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Chipman
...implicitly found that defendant had not established good cause for a second retroactive competency evaluation. See People v. Galloway, 677 P.2d 1380, 1381 (Colo.App.1983) ( "Although the trial court did not make specific findings concerning the witnesses' competency, it implicitly found the......
-
The People Of The State Of Colo. v. Alley
...and the jury was told that his BAC was then 0.049. A trial court “has wide latitude in determining competency,” People v. Galloway, 677 P.2d 1380, 1381 (Colo.App.1983), and its determination that “a witness is competent to testify will not be reversed absent an abuse of People v. Alexander,......
-
People v. Gillispie, 87CA0642
...A witness is generally presumed competent to testify, and the defendant carries the burden to prove otherwise. People v. Galloway, 677 P.2d 1380 (Colo.App.1983). Testimony from a young child in a sexual abuse case is no exception, provided the witness is able to describe and relate events o......
-
Chapter 8 - § 8.2 • MODIFICATION AND REVOCATION PROCEEDINGS
...App. 1994). But see Ruch, discussed in § 8.2.2. A failure to cooperate in counseling may amount to a violation. People v. Galloway, 677 P.2d 1380 (Colo. App. 1983). § 8.2.4—Reconsideration of Sentence Crim. P. 35(b) allows a sentencing court to reconsider and reduce a sentence as long as th......
-
Chapter 4 - § 4.1 • INCOMPETENT WITNESSES
...as a witness is for the trial judge to decide. See generally People v. Bowers, 773 P.2d 1093, 1096 (Colo. App. 1988); People v. Galloway, 677 P.2d 1380, 1381 (Colo. App. 1983). A trial judge's decision on competency is given considerable deference, and will only be overturned for an abuse o......
-
Chapter 8 - § 8.3 • COMPETENCY
...determining the competency of witnesses, and its finding may not be altered unless there was an abuse of discretion. People v. Galloway, 677 P.2d 1380 (Colo. App. 1983). ➢ Personal Knowledge. Unless provided otherwise by statute or by rule, every person with personal knowledge of the matter......
-
Chapter 8 - § 8.3 COMPETENCY
...determining the competency of witnesses, and its finding may not be altered unless there was an abuse of discretion. People v. Galloway, 677 P.2d 1380 (Colo. App. 1983). ➢ Personal Knowledge. Unless provided otherwise by statute or by rule, every person with personal knowledge of the matter......