People v. Patterson, 25115
| Decision Date | 01 June 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 25115,25115 |
| Citation | 485 P.2d 494,175 Colo. 19 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James PATTERSON, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Robert N. Miller, Robert E. Ray, Greeley, for plaintiff-appellee.
Hoyman & Starlin, Edwin S. Culver, Denver, for defendant-appellant.
This interlocutory appeal is brought by Patterson, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, from an adverse ruling in the trial court on his motion to suppress evidence, which he alleges was obtained in violation of his constitutional rights. Insofar as is applicable to the issue raised here, his motion to suppress in the court below alleged that narcotic substances were seized from him by entrapment. The district attorney moved to quash the motion on the grounds that entrapment is a defense to the merits, and is not a proper ground for a motion to suppress. The trial court agreed with the position of the district attorney and denied the motion.
The law is clear that entrapment is a defense which goes to the merits of the charge against a defendant. Gonzales v. People, 168 Colo. 545, 452 P.2d 46; Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435, 53 S.Ct. 210, 77 L.Ed. 413. Entrapment does not present a question of admissibility of evidence, but presents rather the proposition that a conviction may not be obtained, no matter what the evidence, where the authorities instigated the acts complained of, and this is generally a question of fact for a jury. We hold, therefore, that entrapment is not within the scope of Crim.P. 41(e) which deals solely with the question of admissibility.
Unless an adverse trial court ruling is within the scope of Crim.P. 41(e) or (g), it is not within our jurisdiction on interlocutory appeal under C.A.R. 4.1.
The ruling is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Locklayer v. State
...was reached by the Colorado Supreme Court when the question confronting us in the case at bar was squarely presented in People v. Patterson (1971), 485 P.2d 494. Therein the court faced an appeal from a lower court ruling that quashed a motion to suppress on the grounds that entrapment was ......
-
People v. Lott
...motion to settle matters that should have been raised at trial. People v. Fidler, 175 Colo. 90, 485 P.2d 725 (1971); People v. Patterson, 175 Colo. 19, 485 P.2d 494 (1971); People v. Henry, 173 Colo. 523, 482 P.2d 357 (1971); People v. McNulty, 173 Colo. 491, 480 P.2d 560 (1971); People v. ......
-
People v. Lindsey, 82SA536
...41(g), it is not within an appellate court's jurisdiction on interlocutory appeal under the provisions of C.A.R. 4.1. People v. Patterson, 175 Colo. 19, 485 P.2d 494 (1971). Simply stated, interlocutory appeals may not be used to obtain pre-trial review of issues not covered by C.A.R. 4.1. ......
-
People v. Simmons
...(2) a government agent affording an opportunity to one who has the intent and design to commit a criminal offense to do so. People v. Patterson, Colo., 485 P.2d 494; Mora v. People, 172 Colo. 261, 472 P.2d 142; Yeager v. People, 170 Colo. 405, 462 P.2d 487; Gonzales v. People, 168 Colo. 545......