People v. Reyes, 24859
| Citation | 173 Colo. 301,477 P.2d 790 |
| Decision Date | 14 December 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 24859,24859 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jereniah REYES, also known as Jeremiah Reyes, also known as Jerry Reyes, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Carl Parlapiano, Dist. Atty., Cecil Turner, Chief Deputy Dist. Atty., Pueblo, for plaintiff-appellee.
Rollie R. Rogers, Colorado State Public Defender, R. D. Jorgensen, Deputy State Public Defender, Pueblo, for defendant-appellant.
This is an interlocutory appeal from an order denying the motion to suppress certain evidentiary items recovered by the police from an automobile pursuant to a consent search. C.A.R. 4.1.
Reyes, the defendant-appellant, is chaged with forcible rape. At the time of the alleged offense, he was 17 years of age. The searched automobile was owned by the defendant's father.
The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing on the motion to suppress, took the matter under advisement and thereafter entered an order denying the motion. The court made no findings of fact.
As grounds for his motion to suppress, the defendant states '* * * that such evidence was seized without benefit of a warrant and in violation of the defendant's rights as secured by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.' From the testimony at the evidentiary hearing it appears that the principal issue presented to the court was whether the consent to search was voluntary. 'Voluntary' means that the consent is intelligently and freely given. Whether or not the consent which was given in a particular case is voluntary is a question to be determined, in the first instance, by the court from the totality of the circumstances in each case. Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 12 L.Ed.2d 908; Capps v. People, 162 Colo. 323, 426 P.2d 189; Petty v. People, 167 Colo. 240, 447 P.2d 217; Phillips v. People, Colo., 462 P.2d 594.
This court in Compton v. People, 166 Colo. 419, 444 P.2d 263, held that the duty was on the trial court to resolve the issue of voluntariness by making a specific finding as to whether such consent was voluntary. The same rationale applies to the situation in this case.
Before this court can pass upon the ruling of the trial court it must have the benefit of the trial court's findings. The trial court is required to determine the factual issues presented by the motion to suppress. Sufficient guidance can be gleaned from Compton,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Henry, s. 24897
...or subject to proof establishing that connection; and the court should make specific findings with respect to such items. People v. Reyes, Colo., 477 P.2d 790 (1970). Two questions arise here as to 'mere evidence,' an example being the books: whether the 'criminal activity' must appear to b......
-
People v. Vigil, 25142
...such disapproval today. See People v. Jenkins, Colo., 481 P.2d 714 (1971); People v. Ortega, Colo., 481 P.2d 727 (1971); People v. Reyes, Colo., 477 P.2d 790 (1970). Further, the People have not seen fit to favor this court with any argument or answer to the brief filed by the defendant, no......
-
People v. Reyes, 25101
...Denver, R. D. Jorgensen, Deputy State Public Defender, Pueblo, for defendant-appellant. KELLEY, Justice. This is a sequel to People v. Reyes, Colo., 477 P.2d 790. The defendant is appealing an order denying his motion to suppress certain evidentiary items recovered by the police pursuant to......
-
People v. Duncan, 24888
...the trial judge to make findings of fact whenever he rules on a motion to suppress. People v. Ortega, Colo., 481 P.2d 727; People v. Reyes, Colo., 477 P.2d 790. Instead of making findings of fact, the trial court in this case ruled only that the evidence in question was 'admissible as incid......