People v. Maestas, 25273
| Decision Date | 02 April 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 25273,25273 |
| Citation | 508 P.2d 782 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas MAESTAS, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Robert L. Russel, Dist. Atty., Peter M. Susemihl, Deputy Dist. Atty., Colorado Springs, for plaintiff-appellee.
Rollie R. Rogers, Colo. State Public Defender, J. D. MacFarlane, Chief Deputy State Public Defender, Thomas M. Van Cleave, III, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, for defendant-appellant.
The defendant was convicted of the offense of theft by receiving, (I.e., receiving stolen property, knowing it to be stolen) in violation of 1967 Perm.Supp., C.R.S.1963, 40--5--2. We reverse.
The owner of a mink coat testified at the trial that, on December 13, 1970, her husband had placed the coat in a cloakroom at the Broadmoor Hotel in Colorado Springs; that the coat was later missing from the room; and that, at a later date, the coat was returned to her by the sheriff's department. A police officer testified that on January 1, 1971, he received the mink coat 'from a party at Stratton Meadows.' Immediately thereafter a warrant for defendant's arrest was obtained. A deputy of the El Paso County Sheriff's Office testified as to the content of statements made to him by the defendant after his arrest on January 2, 1971. The essence of his statement was that, on December 23, 1970, the defendant, knowing that the coat was 'not clean,' purchased a mink coat from a man and a woman at a bar in Colorado Springs.
At the close of the People's case, the defendant's counsel moved for a judgment of acquittal on the ground that there was a complete lack of proof--independent of the defendant's statements to the deputy sheriff--of all of the necessary elements of the offense of theft by receiving. The trial court denied the motion.
It is long established law in Colorado that an accused's extra-judicial confession or statement is not sufficient to sustain a conviction without proof of the Corpus delicti independent of the statement or confession. Neighbors v. People, 168 Colo. 319, 451 P.2d 264 (1969); Owen v. People, 155 Colo. 19, 392 P.2d 163 (1964); Meredith v. People, 152 Colo. 69, 380 P.2d 227 (1963); Martinez v. People, 129 Colo. 94, 267 P.2d 654 (1954); and Downey v. People, 121 Colo. 307, 215 P.2d 892 (1950). The only independent evidence presented by the People here was that a mink coat had been stolen and that the coat was later...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Applegate, 25270
...confession or admissions without independent proof of the Corpus delicti are not sufficient basis to warrant a conviction. People v. Maestas, Colo., 508 P.2d 782 (announced April 2, 1973); Neighbors v. People, 168 Colo. 319, 451 P.2d 264; Gould v. People, 167 Colo. 113, 445 P.2d 580. The ru......
-
People v. Smith, 25200
...evidence to establish the Corpus delicti. Applegate v. People, Colo., 509 P.2d 1238, announced April 30, 1973; People v. Maestas, Colo., 508 P.2d 782 (1973); Martin v. People, Colo., 499 P.2d 606 (1972); Martinez v. People, 129 Colo. 94, 267 P.2d 654 (1954). In the instant case there is suf......
-
People v. Rankin
...independent of the confession. People v. Smith, supra; People v. Applegate, 181 Colo. 3398 509 P.2d 1238 (1973); People v. Maestes, 181 Colo. 180, 508 P.2d 782 (1973). Excluding the defendant's confession, the relevant evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution, does......