People v. Jamerson
Decision Date | 03 July 1978 |
Docket Number | No. 27979,27979 |
Citation | 196 Colo. 63,580 P.2d 805 |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jon Randolph JAMERSON, Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Nolan L. Brown, Dist. Atty., John R. Barksdale, Deputy Dist. Atty., Golden, for plaintiff-appellant.
Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber & Madden, Mark F. Leonard, Richard S. Bayer, Denver, for defendant-appellee.
On May 12, 1977, the defendant, Jon R. Jamerson, was convicted by a jury of theft by receiving. 1 Shortly thereafter, on May 16, 1977, we held a portion of the theft by receiving statute unconstitutional in People v. Johnson, Colo., 564 P.2d 116 (1977). On June 27, 1977, the trial court, on the basis of our decision in People v. Johnson, supra, granted the defendant's motion for a new trial. The case was dismissed prior to retrial on December 20, 1977, on the ground that the defendant's right to a speedy trial had been violated, since he had not been brought to trial within three months of the new trial order, pursuant to Crim.P. 48(b)(6)(V) and section 18-1-405(6)(e), C.R.S. 1973. We reverse and remand for a new trial.
The prosecution contends on appeal that a new trial order granted after trial and pursuant to a motion for new trial is equivalent to a reversal on appeal for speedy trial purposes. The trial court's characterization of its decision as a mistrial, therefore, is asserted to constitute error. We agree.
Neither Colorado's speedy trial statute, section 18-1-405, C.R.S. 1973, nor our dismissal rule, Crim.P. 48, distinguishes mistrials from new trials. Black's Law Dictionary (rev. 4th ed. 1968), provides the following definitions:
(Citations omitted.)
(Citation omitted.)
Similarly, the court in In re Estate of Bartholomae, 261 Cal.App.2d 839, 68 Cal.Rptr. 332 (1968), declared:
We approve of the foregoing definitions and statements. The crucial consideration in applying these principles...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ortiz v. District Court In and For Las Animas County, 80SA165
...reviewing the case a trial de novo is essentially equivalent to a reversal on appeal by an appellate court. 2 See People v. Jamerson, 196 Colo. 63, 580 P.2d 805 (1978) (a new trial order is functionally equivalent to a reversal on appeal for purposes of determining whether a defendant's spe......
-
Com. v. James
...In re: Alpine, 203 Cal. 731, 265 P. 947 (1928); Estate of Bartholomae, 261 Cal.App.2d 839, 68 Cal.Rptr. 332 (1968); People v. Jamerson, 196 Colo. 63, 580 P.2d 805 (1978); Jamison v. U.S., 373 A.2d 594 (D.C.App.) (1977); Hess v. State, 146 Ga.App. 874, 247 S.E.2d 546 (1978); Baird v. Chicago......
-
People v. Glaser, 08CA0411.
...92, 97, 596 P.2d 764, 768 (1979) (“Defendant's original motion to dismiss was not legally sustainable as we ruled in People v. Jamerson, [196 Colo. 63, 580 P.2d 805 (1978) ]. He cannot now use the fact that a trial court erroneously upheld his position to predicate an argument that an unrea......
-
State v. Torres
...(internal citation omitted); United States v. Rivera , 634 Fed. App'x 213, 215 (10th Cir. 2015) (same); Colorado v. Jamerson , 196 Colo. 63, 580 P.2d 805, 806–807 (1978) (same).3 See, e.g. , Ala. Code § 13A-5-46(g) ; Cal. Penal Code § 190.4(c) ; Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 53a-46a(b) ; Del. Cod......