People v. Martinez, 27160
| Decision Date | 23 August 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 27160,27160 |
| Citation | 191 Colo. 428,553 P.2d 774 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Maxie MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Robert R. Gallagher, Jr., Dist. Atty., James C. Sell, Deputy Dist. Atty., Littleton, for plaintiff-appellant.
Myers, Woodford & Hoppin, Frederick J. Myers, Denver, for defendant-appellee.
Defendant Martinez was charged with first-degree assault as defined in section 18--3--202(1)(a), C.R.S.1973. He pled not guilty and the matter was tried to a jury. After the close of the People's evidence, the defendant made a motion for judgment of acquittal which was granted by the trial court.
The people appeal and assert that the trial court erred in granting the motion for judgment of acquittal because the People had presented substantial evidence which would have supported a jury verdict of guilty. We agree with this assertion and hold that the trial court clearly usurped the jury's function in this case. Because a retrial would violate the rule against double jeopardy, we can, in this case, only register our disapproval of the trial court's judgment of acquittal.
Mr. George Van Vleet drove to a large shopping center to pick up his fifteen-year old son Robert who was employed at the shopping center. Prior to being picked up by his father, Robert had been joined by two of his friends. He testified that prior to the time his father picked him and his two friends up, they had encountered the defendant and three other young men in the mall of the shopping center. Robert related in his testimony that one of the four young men had asked if he had any beer or marijuana. When a negative response was made, this encounter ended.
Shortly after Mr. Van Vleet picked up Robert and his two friends, and as they proceeded out of the shopping center, some object hit the car. Mr. Van Vleet immediately stopped the car and got out in order to investigate possible damage. Mr. Van Vleet testified that as he walked to the front of his car, he observed the defendant coming toward the automobile with a mace in his hand. He described this object as a metal ball with spikes and a chain. Robert and his two friends then also got out of the car. Mr. Van Vleet observed the defendant swinging the mace at his son Robert, saw the mace strike his son's head, and saw his son collapse beside the car. He also testified that he observed a belt and club being swung by two of the other individuals who were with the defendant. Robert was assisted into the automobile by one of his friends. Mr. Van Vleet then drove immediately to a nearby police station to report this incident and to secure assistance for his injured son, Robert, who was thereafter taken to a hospital.
A neurosurgeon testified that he examined Robert's head injuries at the hospital. His examination revealed a puncture wound behind the left ear and other lacerations on the head. This doctor testified that the puncture wound had penetrated the skull, exposed the brain, and that immediate surgery was required. He performed the surgery which revealed that particles of bone and hair had been driven into the brain. During the surgery, the bone fragments and hair were removed, and in addition, brain tissue was removed which, in the surgeon's opinion, was devitalized by the nature of the injury. This witness also stated that, in his opinion, the skull was fractured and penetrated by a sharp pointed object.
The foregoing evidence presented by the prosecution established all the elements of first-degree assault. The trial judge conceded this in the following statement he made just prior to ordering the entry of the judgment of acquittal:
'Now, I don't understand and probably never will understand why the prosecution in this case chose to call adverse witnesses to give an entirely different version of what happened out there than those presented by the Van Vleets.
In my humble opinion, I think had the case terminated at the end of their evidence, there would have been no question in this Court's mind that that would have been the necessary quantum and quality of evidence to establish the necessary elements to show assault in the first degree.'
The 'adverse witnesses' mentioned in the foregoing statement of the trial judge were two of the three young men who were with the defendant at the time of the alleged assault. One of them was, in fact, the defendant's brother. The prosecution called these witnesses who testified, in effect, that the father of the victim and one of the victim's friends made aggressive moves toward them and they, therefore, felt that they had to act in self-defense. They also testified that they did not see any weapon in the hands of the defendant at the time of the incident. One of these witnesses, however, conceded that he had shortly before seen a mace in the defendant's car. These witnesses also testified, as did several of the other prosecution witnesses, that one of the defendant's companions...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Russell v. State, 4735
...elements of the crime, the State has then made out a "prima facie case," impregnable against a motion for acquittal. People v. Martinez, Colo.1976, 553 P.2d 774; People v. Chavez, 1973, 182 Colo. 216, 511 P.2d 883. To deny a motion to acquit, there must be sufficient evidence to support a p......
-
People v. Moseley
...in inferring that the weapon was loaded. Consequently, the district court did not err in denying appellant's motion. People v. Martinez, Colo., 553 P.2d 774. III. Next, appellant urges that the court erred in overruling his objection to the following remark made by the district attorney in ......
-
People v. Brassfield
...P.2d 1 (Colo.1982); People v. Ray, 626 P.2d 167 (Colo.1981); People v. Roberts, 197 Colo. 304, 592 P.2d 801 (1979); People v. Martinez, 191 Colo. 428, 553 P.2d 774 (1976). The limitation upon a judge's power to set aside a jury verdict is based, to a substantial degree, upon the fundamental......
-
People v. Hamrick
...People, 125 Colo. 527, 247 P.2d 665 (1952). However, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, see People v. Martinez, Colo., 553 P.2d 774 (1976); People v. Bennett, 183 Colo. 125, 515 P.2d 466 (1973), we conclude that the evidence of causation was not insufficient as ......
-
ARTICLE 3
...to support jury verdict of guilty, the granting of motion for judgment of acquittal by the trial judge was error. People v. Martinez, 191 Colo. 428, 553 P.2d 774 (1976). Evidence sufficient to support conviction. Where defendant said that he was going home to get a gun and would be back, an......
-
ARTICLE 3 OFFENSES AGAINST THE PERSON
...to support jury verdict of guilty, the granting of motion for judgment of acquittal by the trial judge was error. People v. Martinez, 191 Colo. 428, 553 P.2d 774 (1976). Evidence sufficient to support conviction. Where defendant said that he was going home to get a gun and would be back, an......