People v. Goff
| Decision Date | 02 December 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 26041,26041 |
| Citation | 187 Colo. 103,530 P.2d 514 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ernest Leroy GOFF, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
John P. Moore, Atty. Gen., John E. Bush, Deputy Atty. Gen., E. Ronald Beeks, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.
John L. Springer, Aurora, for defendant-appellant.
Appellant was convicted by a jury of aggravated robbery of Theresa Bustos and of simple robbery of Patricia Smith, in violation of 1967 Perm.Supp., C.R.S.1963, 40--5--1(1) and 40--5--1(2). Two counts of conspiracy were dismissed by the court prior to submission of the case to the jury. We affirm the convictions.
The People's evidence showed that an armed robbery occurred at a U-Tote-M store in Westminster on the night of January 19, 1972. A man identified as appellant entered the store and walked up to the counter where a clerk, Theresa Bustos, was engaged in conversation with a customer, Patricia Smith. The robber inquired if the stamp machine was working and, upon being informed that it was, he requested change. He then said: 'This is a holdup' and showed a gun. He also twice exclaimed, 'Hurry up.' The clerk gave him the cash from the register. The robber, who had positioned himself about two feet from the customer standing at the counter, took from the customer's hand a twenty-dollar bill which in panic she had shoved toward him. The robber thereupon left the store and drove off in a waiting automobile with two other persons. Appellant was arrested later in the evening. He was positively identified as the robber by both victims at a pretrial photographic lineup and again independently at the trial.
Appellant did not testify and he offered no defense evidence.
Appellant urges as grounds for reversal two instances at trial which he contends were highly inflammatory and prejudicial to him and warranted a declaration of mistrial.
First, in connection with the conspiracy charges, the district attorney, on direct examination of a witness to events occurring earlier in the evening before the robbery, asked the following question: 'And were they talking about an armed robbery at that time?' Appellant's counsel immediately objected. The court sustained the objection. No answer to the question was given. Appellant then moved for a mistrial, which was denied. The court during instructions to the jury gave the general cautionary instruction that evidence offered at trial and rejected or sticken by the court must not be considered and that statements by counsel are not evidence. Additionally, the court dismissed the two conspiracy counts to which this improper leading question related. The conspiracy dismissals rendered moot any prejudice that might have arisen from the question asked. We find no abuse of discretion in denying the motion for mistrial.
The second instance complained of relates to items which had been removed from the appellant at the time of his arrest and placed in an evidence envelope. The district attorney opened the envelope in court and produced the items, among which was a knife, to be marked for identification. Appellant's counsel objected on the grounds of relevancy. The district attorney thereupon withdrew the offer, stating indeed there was nothing to link the knife to any crime in issue. Counsel then moved for a mistrial, claiming that displaying the knife to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Smith
...mistrial should only be granted under circumstances which demonstrate substantial and undue prejudice to the defendant. People v. Goff, 187 Colo. 103, 530 P.2d 514 (1974); Howe v. People, 178 Colo. 248, 496 P.2d 1040 (1972). The jury was instructed to disregard the hearsay evidence, and it ......
-
Martin v. People, 85SC148
...or in custody. It must be presumed that the jury followed the instruction. People v. Smith, 620 P.2d 232 (Colo.1980); People v. Goff, 187 Colo. 103, 530 P.2d 514 (1974). As such, it is less likely that the admission of the evidence of the nature of the previous conviction substantially infl......
-
People v. Bell
...the trial court's immediate instruction to disregard the question, which we presume the jury to have followed, see People v. Goff, 187 Colo. 103, 530 P.2d 514 (1974); the speculative nature of the prejudice, see People v. Ashley, supra; and the substantial evidence of defendant's guilt, see......
-
People v. Huguley
...not pursued further. Not every improper question or attempt to present improper evidence mandates a new trial. See, e. g., People v. Goff, 187 Colo. 103, 530 P.2d 514; People v. Knapp, supra; Lee v. People, 170 Colo. 268, 460 P.2d 796. The decision as to whether the prosecutor's conduct man......