People v. Ledesma, 23539

Decision Date13 April 1970
Docket NumberNo. 23539,23539
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff in Error, v. Roque F. LEDESMA, Defendant in Error.
CourtColorado Supreme Court

James D. McKevitt, Dist. Atty., Gregory A. Mueller, Asst. Dist. Atty., James W. Creamer, Jr., Chief Deputy Dist. Atty., James M. DeRose, Bennett Rolfe, Edward A. Simons, Deputy Dist. Attys., Second Judicial District, Denver, for plaintiff in error.

Rollie R. Rogers, State Public Defender, Kenneth J. Russell, Deputy State Public Defender, Edward H. Sherman, William Chisholm, Public Defenders, City and County of Denver, Denver, for defendant in error.

GROVES, Justice.

This is a writ of error proceeding brought by the district attorney seeking our disapproval of action taken by the trial court in the trial of criminal charges against the defendant in error. We do not disapprove the action of the trial court.

By information the defendant was charged with two counts of unnatural copulation--per os and per anus. The information also contained counts of felonious assault and other crimes. The alleged victim was 12 years of age and was the stepdaughter of the defendant.

The court appointed an attorney, other than the counsel for the defendant, to act as counsel for the child. The girl's attorney advised her to refuse to answer any questions beyond liminal interrogation for the reason that she might incriminate herself. She followed this advice and refused to answer all questions propounded to her except those concerning her name, age, acquaintanceship with the defendant, identification of the defendant and her relationship to the defendant. The court ruled that her testimony might tend to incriminate her and declined to require her to answer any of the questions which she had refused to answer. This girl was the only witness called by the People. Following her refusal to answer eleven questions propounded to her by the deputy district attorney, he stated that he had no further questions and 'The People rest.' Thereupon the court granted the defendant's motion for a directed verdict of acquittal on all counts.

The basic assumption is that the girl could not be convicted of committing a Crime as a result of any of the acts involved. The principal question of law presented is whether she still might incriminate herself. The alleged offense occurred after the Colorado Children's Code became effective on July 1, 1967. 1967 Perm.Supp., C.R.S.1963, 22--1--1 et seq. A reading of the statute discloses a number of grounds upon which, possibly, the conduct of the child would be the basis for finding her delinquent, in need of supervision, neglected or dependent. The United States Supreme Court has held...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • People v. Allee
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • 29 Junio 1987
    ...questions of law; they may not appeal determinations of fact. People v. Ware, 187 Colo. 28, 528 P.2d 224 (1974); People v. Ledesma, 171 Colo. 407, 468 P.2d 27 (1970). In short, the error-correction procedures available to a party in a civil case are not available to nearly as great an exten......
  • People v. Naranjo
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • 23 Mayo 1991
    ...that they are entitled to proceed with this appeal because, rather than concerning an unappealable issue of fact, see People v. Ledesma, 171 Colo. 407, 468 P.2d 27 (1970), it involves a question of law, and pursuant to § 16-12-102(1), C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 8A), such appeals are Crim.P. 35(......
  • People v. Fleming, 88SA134
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • 30 Octubre 1989
    ...by section 16-12-102(1), 8A C.R.S. (1986), which permits the prosecution to appeal only a question of law. People v. Ledesma, 171 Colo. 407, 409-10, 468 P.2d 27, 28 (1970). Even if we could review factual matters on an appeal by the prosecution, such review would be limited to whether the r......
  • People v. Tharp
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • 7 Diciembre 1987
    ...sec. 1, § 39-12-102, 1972 Colo.Sess.Laws 190, 253, a predecessor of the current section 16-12-102(1)). See also People v. Ledesma, 171 Colo. 407, 410, 468 P.2d 27, 28 (1970) (in writ of error proceeding brought by the district attorney seeking review of dismissal of criminal charges by the ......

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