People v. Gross, No. 00CA0700.

Docket NºNo. 00CA0700.
Citation39 P.3d 1279
Case DateDecember 20, 2001
CourtCourt of Appeals of Colorado

39 P.3d 1279

The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Dale W. GROSS, Defendant-Appellant

No. 00CA0700.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. I.

December 20, 2001.


39 P.3d 1280
Ken Salazar, Attorney General, Rebecca A. Adams, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, CO, for Plaintiff-Appellee

David S. Kaplan, Colorado State Public Defender, Richard A. Hostetler, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, CO, for Defendant-Appellant.

Opinion by Judge NEY.

Defendant, Dale W. Gross, appeals the judgment entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of first degree criminal trespass, first degree burglary, retaliation against a witness or victim, second degree assault, third degree assault, two counts of domestic violence, and one crime of violence count. Defendant's sole contention is that the trial court erred in consolidating his cases for trial. We affirm.

Defendant was charged with multiple crimes in one case as the result of encounters with his former girlfriend (the victim) on July 24 and 27, 1998. In the July 24 incident, defendant entered the victim's home through the front door while she was in the shower. He displayed a knife to the victim, placed his hands on her throat, and pulled her hair. In the face of this show of force, the victim allowed defendant into the shower and had sexual intercourse with him.

On July 27, defendant entered the victim's home through a window, after which he pushed and slapped her and pulled her hair. He took the victim's car keys, and she left the house with him out of fear. Defendant drove the victim to a secluded spot in the mountains and had sexual intercourse with her.

Based on the events of July 24 and 27, defendant was charged with single counts of kidnapping and domestic violence and two counts each of second degree burglary, first degree criminal trespass, and third degree assault.

39 P.3d 1281
Defendant was charged with multiple crimes in a second case as the result of a September 9, 1998, encounter with the victim and her boyfriend. On that date, defendant entered the victim's home through the back door and attacked her boyfriend with a knife. After stabbing the boyfriend, defendant located the victim outside the house and put his hands on her throat and hair and forced her to the ground

As the result of the September 9 incident, defendant was charged with attempted first degree murder of the boyfriend, first degree burglary, retaliation against a witness or victim, second degree assault of the boyfriend, violation of bail bond conditions, third degree assault of the victim, domestic violence, committing a crime of violence, and two counts of violating a restraining order.

The People filed a motion to consolidate both cases for trial. Defendant opposed consolidation on the ground that it was unduly prejudicial in violation of Crim. P. 14. The trial court granted the motion to consolidate in part, permitting the prosecution to try all the charges together except three counts related to bail bond and restraining order violations. The prosecution subsequently dismissed the latter three charges.

The attorney who represented defendant at the pretrial hearing on the prosecution's motion to consolidate was not the attorney who represented him at trial. Defendant's trial attorney did not renew the objection to the consolidation. After a jury trial, defendant was convicted of the charges from which he appeals and was acquitted on all other counts.

I.

Initially, we must resolve the question whether defendant may raise the issue of improper consolidation on appeal. The People argue that defendant did not preserve the issue for review because he did not renew his pretrial objection to consolidation. We are not persuaded.

The supreme court has held that a trial court's failure to sever charges brought in a single information will not be considered on appeal...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 practice notes
  • People v. Bondsteel, Court of Appeals No. 11CA1784
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals of Colorado
    • November 19, 2015
    ...to review Bondsteel's claim on the merits, we further conclude that his contention fails.A. Preservation¶ 4 Relying on People v. Gross, 39 P.3d 1279 (Colo. App. 2001), Bondsteel asserts that he preserved the misjoinder issue with an objection when the prosecution sought pretrial joinder of ......
  • People v. Ambrose, Court of Appeals No. 18CA1557
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals of Colorado
    • July 23, 2020
    ...to the court and the court issues a definitive ruling." People v. Dinapoli , 2015 COA 9, ¶ 20, 369 P.3d 680 ; see also People v. Gross , 39 P.3d 1279, 1281 (Colo. App. 2001) ("[W]here a party objects during a pretrial hearing on a motion in limine ... the objector is entitled to assume that......
  • People v. Ambrose, Court of Appeals No. 18CA1557
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals of Colorado
    • May 6, 2021
    ...to the court and the court issues a definitive ruling." People v. Dinapoli , 2015 COA 9, ¶ 20, 369 P.3d 680 ; see also People v. Gross , 39 P.3d 1279, 1281 (Colo. App. 2001) ("[W]here a party objects during a pretrial hearing on a motion in limine ... the objector is entitled to assume that......
  • People v. Owens, No. 01CA1712.
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals of Colorado
    • January 29, 2004
    ...court erred in consolidating the three cases for trial. We disagree. A. Initially, we reject, for the reasons stated in People v. Gross, 39 P.3d 1279, 1281-82 (Colo.App.2001), the prosecution's assertion that defendant waived this contention by not renewing his pretrial objection to B. Whet......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
26 cases
  • People v. Bondsteel, Court of Appeals No. 11CA1784
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals of Colorado
    • November 19, 2015
    ...to review Bondsteel's claim on the merits, we further conclude that his contention fails.A. Preservation¶ 4 Relying on People v. Gross, 39 P.3d 1279 (Colo. App. 2001), Bondsteel asserts that he preserved the misjoinder issue with an objection when the prosecution sought pretrial joinder of ......
  • People v. Ambrose, Court of Appeals No. 18CA1557
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals of Colorado
    • July 23, 2020
    ...to the court and the court issues a definitive ruling." People v. Dinapoli , 2015 COA 9, ¶ 20, 369 P.3d 680 ; see also People v. Gross , 39 P.3d 1279, 1281 (Colo. App. 2001) ("[W]here a party objects during a pretrial hearing on a motion in limine ... the objector is entitled to assume that......
  • People v. Ambrose, Court of Appeals No. 18CA1557
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals of Colorado
    • May 6, 2021
    ...to the court and the court issues a definitive ruling." People v. Dinapoli , 2015 COA 9, ¶ 20, 369 P.3d 680 ; see also People v. Gross , 39 P.3d 1279, 1281 (Colo. App. 2001) ("[W]here a party objects during a pretrial hearing on a motion in limine ... the objector is entitled to assume that......
  • People v. Owens, No. 01CA1712.
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals of Colorado
    • January 29, 2004
    ...court erred in consolidating the three cases for trial. We disagree. A. Initially, we reject, for the reasons stated in People v. Gross, 39 P.3d 1279, 1281-82 (Colo.App.2001), the prosecution's assertion that defendant waived this contention by not renewing his pretrial objection to B. Whet......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT