People v. Gomez
| Decision Date | 23 May 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 17582,17582 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the Colorado, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Ralph GOMEZ, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., for plaintiffs in error. Bert M. Keating, Dist. Atty., Second Judicial Dist., and Max D. Melville, Asst. Dist. Atty., Second Judicial Dist., Denver, of counsel.
No appearance for defendant in error.
In an information filed in the district court Ralph Gomez, alias Ralph Cruz, was charged with the crime of burglary. On the day set for the trial of the cause, and at the conclusion of the opening statement of the district attorney, on motion of defendant's counsel, the court directed the jury to return a verdict of not guilty, and defendant was discharged. The People bring the case to our Court by writ of error under the provisions of 39-7-27, C.R.S. '53, seeking a disapproval of the trial court's disposition of the cause.
The record shows that the district attorney in his opening statement, after detailing the evidence with reference to the burglarizing of a liquor store, concluded his statement thusly: 'that the police arrived, and that as a result of the investigation conducted by them, this defendant was filed against for participation in the commission of this crime.' Whereupon the defendant's counsel stated, '* * * on the opening statement, we would like to move, outside of the presence of the jury, for a dismissal.' Apparently some argument on the motion occurred out of the presence of the jury, whereupon the court announced:
* * *
* * *
'Mr. Rosenbaum (Deputy District Attorney): Your Honor, for the record, I would like to move to amend my opening statement.
'The Court: It is too late.'
The court then addressed the jury as follows:
The assignments of error are two in number: (1) Error in the direction of a verdict; (2) denial of motion for leave to amend opening statement. These assignments will be consolidated for discussion.
Counsel for the People rely solely upon the text found in 23 C.J.S., Criminal Law, § 1145(5), page 670, in support of their position that error was committed by the trial court. There is no appearance in our Court for the defendant in error.
Our study of the question presented prompts the statement that there is no statute nor rule of court in this jurisdiction requiring the prosecuting attorney in the trial of any criminal case to make any opening statement whatever to the jury, and it is within his discretion to do or not to do so. We appreciate the importance of advising a jury in a criminal case of the evidence upon which the People will rely for a conviction in order that it may better understand the evidence as it is presented. In the instant case the jurors were advised by the district attorney in his opening statement what he would undertake to establish as a factual situation in connection with the charge of burglary, and then concluded by stating that he would undertake to establish the participation of defendant in the commission of the crime. We believe this opening statement to be legally...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Simpson
...126 F. 676 (8th Cir. 1904); United States v. Maryland Coop. Milk Producers, Inc., 145 F.Supp. 151 (D.D.C.1956); People v. Gomez, 131 Colo. 576, 283 P.2d 949 (1955); see generally Annot. 75 A.L.R.3d 649 (1977); 2 C. Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure, Criminal, § 462 (1969 and 1981 Supp.......
-
White v. State
...48 Ariz. 61, 59 P.2d 312; Stanley v. State, 174 Ark. 743, 297 S.W. 826; People v. Green, 47 Cal.2d 209, 302 P.2d 307; People v. Gomez, 131 Colo. 576, 283 P.2d 949; People v. Reed, 333 Ill. 397, 164 N.E. 847; Bolden v. State, 199 Ind. 160, 155 N.E. 824; State v. Kendall, 200 Iowa 483, 203 N.......
-
State v. Crane, CA2013–02–001.
...the informative function of advising “the jury of the question and facts invoked in the matter before it.” [People v.] Gomez [ (1955), 131 Colo. 576, 283 P.2d 949] *** at 950. Second, and more importantly,“[i]n criminal cases, the province and powers of the jury as the conscience of the com......
-
State v. Juan Holmes, 91-LW-2247
...evidence, but merely serves the informative function of advising "the jury of the question and facts invoked in the matter before it." Gomez, supra, at 950. Second, and more "[i]n criminal cases, the province and powers of the jury as the conscience of the community should rarely, if ever, ......