People v. Proctor, 27636
| Decision Date | 24 October 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 27636,27636 |
| Citation | 194 Colo. 172,570 P.2d 540 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gary PROCTOR, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
J. D. MacFarlane, Atty. Gen., Jean E. Dubofsky, Deputy Atty. Gen., Edward G. Donovan, Sol. Gen., David K. Rees, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.
Rollie R. Rogers, Colorado State Public Defender, James F. Dumas, Jr., Chief Deputy State Public Defender, Lee Belstock, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, for defendant-appellant.
Roy C. Box had been a witness to a "ruckus" and was listed as a potential witness on a summons and complaint pending against the defendant. Box testified that on March 20, 1976 the defendant stated:
Box had not been served with a subpoena at the time of the March 20, 1976 incident but subsequently received one.
The jury found the defendant guilty of violating subsection (a) of section 18-8-604, C.R.S. 1973:
On appeal, the defendant contends that subsection (a) should not be construed as being applicable to these facts. The defendant's argument is two-pronged. He contends that such a construction of subsection (a) conflicts with the language and structure of the entire statute and also renders subsection (a) unconstitutional as an infringement on freedom of speech.
Defendant notes that subsection (c) deal specifically with intimidation to induce someone to avoid appearing altogether. That provision requires that the party be legally summoned. Thus defendant contends that this construction of subsection (a) renders subsection (c) meaningless by allowing punishment of the same conduct without the requirement that the party be legally summoned. Defendant further contends that "unlawfully withhold any testimony" must be read together with "testify falsely" with the resultant conclusion that subsection (a) as a whole was intended to deal only with intimidation which has the effect of deceiving the trier of fact. This deception may be accomplished either by the use of false testimony or withholding vital portions of testimony. In sum, defendant's argument is that subsection (c) was intended to deal with inducing someone not to appear at all, while subsection (a) was intended to deal only with deceptive testimony.
On the contrary, it appears that the defendant's actions come within the plain language of subsection (a). It is clear that he has attempted to influence someone to withhold testimony. It is hardly a mitigating factor that his goal was the withholding of all testimony, not just portions thereof.
Defendant next contends that "unlawfully withhold any testimony" must mean something more than a failure to be present to testify when there is no legal compulsion, arguing that, since the witness was not subpoenaed at the time of the contact, withholding testimony could not be unlawful.
The defendant misinterprets the statute. Whether the potential witness has been subpoenaed at the time of the contact is irrelevant. The statute expressly forbids intimidation, not only of a witness, but also of one whom the accused "believes is to be called as a witness" in the future. We hold that all that is necessary to complete this crime is to presently attempt, by threat of harm or injury, to influence someone to withhold testimony at a future time. It is clear that "unlawfully" refers to the time when the testimony is to be actually withheld, not to the time of the contact. If we were to accept defendant's proposition the result...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. State
...provisions of WYO.STAT. § 6-5-305(a) will protect that person. Sound public policy supports this determination. In People v. Proctor, 194 Colo. 172, 570 P.2d 540, 542 (1977), the court dealt with the construction of a similar statute and an assertion that the statute was unconstitutional. I......
-
People v. Cunefare
...the witness or victim to testify falsely or unlawfully withhold any testimony. § 18-8-704, C.R.S. (2004). In People v. Proctor, 194 Colo. 172, 570 P.2d 540 (1977), the defendant was charged with violating the intimidation statute. An individual, Mr. Box, had witnessed a "ruckus" and was lis......
-
People v. Gonzales, s. 77-095
...for the People to show that Barreda had witnessed something concerning which his testimony would be probative. See People v. Proctor, 194 Colo. 172, 570 P.2d 540 (1977). Consequently, evidence of the May 28 episode was necessary to prove one of the elements of the crime charged. See People ......
-
People v. Gardner
...could not be charged with a violation of § 18-8-704 for conduct subsequent to that particular testimony. See People v. Proctor, 194 Colo. 172, 570 P.2d 540 (1977) (court held, in interpreting identical predecessor statute, that all that is necessary to show offense is proof of attempt to in......