People v. Goldsberry, 25397
| Decision Date | 14 May 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 25397,25397 |
| Citation | 509 P.2d 801,181 Colo. 406 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Frank Alan GOLDSBERRY, 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.
Paul A. Dupler, Don P. Stimmel, Boulder, for defendant-appellant.
By jury verdict, the defendant was convicted of receiving stolen goods. On appeal, one of the grounds for reversal is that the trial court erroneously denied the defendant's motion for a mistrial. We agree with this contention and therefore reverse the trial court's judgment and remand this case for a new trial. The defendant's other allegations of error have no merit and require no discussion.
A prosecution witness, who admittedly was one of the individuals who stole the items involved, was asked by the district attorney what the defendant had said during the exchange of the stolen goods for money. The witness answered:
'He told us that he had the money because he was planning on leaving in a day or two to go to Texas to make an investment in some drugs.'
The defense attorney's objection to this response was sustained and the trial court instructed the jury to disregard this testimony. It was also ordered to be stricken. In the context of this case, the inference is unmistakable that this response concerned the intended purchase of illicit drugs by the defendant. Thereafter, defendant's counsel moved for a mistrial. During the consideration of this motion, the district attorney stated that he 'was aware of what the response of the witness would be.' The trial court denied the motion for a mistrial.
It is elementary that in a criminal trial to a jury, evidence of a defendant's criminal activity, which is unrelated to the offense charged, is admissible. When reference is made in the presence of the jury to such criminal activity, a mistrial is normally required. See Edmisten v. People, Colo., 490 P.2d 58 (1971). The exceptions to this rule are limited to well defined and special situations where proof of other similar offenses will show the defendant's intent, motive, plan, scheme, or design with respect to the crime charged. In such situations, the trial court is required to give cautionary instructions limiting the purpose of such evidence. Godfrey v. People, 168 Colo. 299, 451 P.2d 291 (1969), and Stull v. People, 140 Colo. 278, 344 P.2d 455 (1959). See also Oaks v. People, 150 Colo. 64, 371 P.2d 443 (1962). Likewise, when a defendant's prior felony convictions are elicited during his testimony, a limiting instruction is required. Taylor v. People, Colo., 490 P.2d 292 (1971).
In this case, the reference to criminal activity on the part of the defendant did not involve a similar offense. Also, it obviously was not elicited from the defendant and did not concern a prior felony conviction. Therefore, none of the exceptions referred to in the foregoing paragraph are applicable.
In reaching the result we do here, we point out that, after a detailed review of all the evidence in this case, it appears that the proof of the defendant's guilt was rather thin. An integrant of the crime of receiving stolen property is knowledge that it has been stolen. Stull v. People, Supra. Here, it should also be pointed out that the theory of defense was a lack of such knowledge, and the only proof of knowledge is circumstantial. The weight which the jury obviously gave to this circumstantial evidence may have quite reasonably been influenced by the inadmissible reference to the defendant's intended trip to Texas to purchase drugs.
Even though the trial judge in this case made an effort to erase the effect of this inadmissible evidence from the minds of the jury by his cautionary instruction to disregard it, it is our view that a mistrial was, nevertheless, required in this case. Frequently, an error in exposing to the jury certain inadmissible evidence may be cured by instructing the jury to disregard it. However, when such evidence is so highly prejudicial, as here, it is conceivable that but for its...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harris v. People
...may be granted notwithstanding the trial court's failure to impose such sanction. Moody, 676 P.2d at 697; People v. Goldsberry, 181 Colo. 406, 410, 509 P.2d 801, 803-04 (1973). B Application of these principles to the circumstances of this case requires the conclusion that the prosecutor's ......
-
Blood v. Qwest Services Corp.
... ... In Oregon, how many people do we see outside, driving home ... smoking cigarettes? ... [C]igarettes ... are going to kill ten ... See People v. Goldsberry, 181 ... 224 P.3d 334 ... Colo. 406, 410, 509 P.2d 801, 803 (1973); People v. Anderson, 183 ... ...
-
People v. Dunlap
...reading of the dismissed charge did not introduce other bad acts of defendant, as occurred in the cases he cites, People v. Goldsberry, 181 Colo. 406, 509 P.2d 801 (1973)(testimony that defendant was buying drugs when charged only with receiving stolen property); Edmisten v. People, 176 Col......
-
Qwest Serv. Corp.. v. Blood
...The dissent below relied on Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968), and People v. Goldsberry, 181 Colo. 406, 509 P.2d 801 (Colo.1973), for the proposition that the evidence of Qwest's post-accident conduct was so prejudicial that the trial court's jury i......