People v. Jenkins, s. 25013
| Decision Date | 08 March 1971 |
| Docket Number | 25044,Nos. 25013,s. 25013 |
| Citation | 174 Colo. 26,481 P.2d 714 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Edward JENKINS, also known as James Jenkins, Defendant-Appellant. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Albert Madison BROOKS, Jr., also known as Albert M. Brooks, also known asAlbert Brooks, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Carl Parlapiano, Dist. Atty., Daniel J. Sears, Deputy Dist. Atty., Pueblo, for the People.
Rollie R. Rogers, Public Defender, Darol C. Biddle, Deputy Public Defender, Pueblo, for James Edward Jenkins and Albert Madison Brooks.
James Edward Jenkins and Albert Madison Brooks, Jr., are charged jointly with possession of a narcotic drug and conspiracy to possess a narcotic drug. Each defendant filed a motion to suppress the narcotics upon which the charges are based. The trial court granted the motion to suppress as to the defendant Brooks, but denied the motion to suppress as to the defendant Jenkins.
The defendant Jenkins in No. 25013 and the State in No. 25044 have appealed separately the trial court's rulings on the motions to suppress evidence. (See C.A.R. 4.1)
The defendants were arrested together without a warrant on the basis of information to the effect that the defendants were going to consummate a sale of narcotics at or near the place of arrest, which information was supplied to the arresting officer by an informant.
Part of the evidence sought to be suppressed was obtained incident to the arrest, some was handed to a police officer by the defendant Jenkins, and the balance was obtained upon a search warrant. It appears that that which was seized incident to the arrest, that which was handed to the police officer, and that which was seized pursuant to the search warrant were all seized primarily as a result of the information furnished by the informant in the first instance.
The trial court conducted an extensive evidentiary hearing on the motions to suppress. On some phases there was conflicting testimony. However, the trial court made no findings of fact in ruling on the motions. The court's rulings in their entirety appear in this paragraph:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Hoinville
...of the motion.' Crim.P. 41(g). The trial court must then make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law. See People v. Jenkins, 174 Colo. 26, 481 P.2d 714 (1971); People v. Ortega, 173 Colo. 564, 481 P.2d 727 In the present case, the trial court merely concluded that probable cause e......
-
People v. Vigil, 25142
...wihtout the inclusion of appropriate findings of fact by the trial court, and we reiterate such disapproval today. See People v. Jenkins, Colo., 481 P.2d 714 (1971); People v. Ortega, Colo., 481 P.2d 727 (1971); People v. Reyes, Colo., 477 P.2d 790 (1970). Further, the People have not seen ......
-
Huguley v. People
...to remand the cause to the trial court for specific findings. People v. Martinez, 185 Colo. 278, 523 P.2d 1405 (1974); People v. Jenkins, 174 Colo. 26, 481 P.2d 714 (1971). In remanding, we adhere to the procedure adopted in similar previous cases: "Since the trial court is the finder of fa......
-
People v. Duncan
...evidentiary hearing in order to arrive at the truth concerning this issue, it was within his discretion to do so. People v. Jenkins, 174 Colo. 26, 481 P.2d 714. We find nothing in the authorities cited by appellant that prohibits the procedure here adopted. Had we reversed the case and orde......