People v. Rivera

Decision Date23 September 1975
Docket NumberNo. 74--554,74--554
Citation37 Colo.App. 4,542 P.2d 90
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Ismal RIVERA, Defendant-Appellant. . III
CourtColorado Court of Appeals

John D. MacFarlane, Atty. Gen., Edward G. Donovan, Sol. Gen., Denver, Dan B. Fahrney, Chief Deputy Dist. Atty., First Judicial Dist., Golden, for plaintiff-appellee.

Rollie R. Rogers, State Public Defender, Norman R. Mueller, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, for defendant-appellant.

STERNBERG, Judge.

Based upon an allegation that while confined to Camp George West following conviction of larceny of a motor vehicle, defendant had escaped, he was charged and convicted of the crime of escape in violation of § 18--8--208, C.R.S.1973. On appeal, he contends that proof was lacking of the material elements of the crime of escape. We disagree and therefore affirm the conviction.

Defendant's first contention is that Exhibits 1 through 4 were improperly admitted into evidence in that they were not properly authenticated pursuant to C.R.C.P. 44(a)(1). These exhibits were the only documentary eivdence of his prior conviction and confinement. The defects complained of are that Exhibit 1, a copy of the mittimus which followed the larceny sentence, was not accompanied by the required certificate, and that although Exhibit 2, a copy of a copy of the original mittimus, and Exhibit 4, a copy of the original larceny judgment and sentence, were both accompanied by Exhibit 3, a copy of a double certification, they were nevertheless deficient in that the double certification failed to state that the exhibits were true and correct copies of the original. Furthermore, defendant asserts that although Exhibits 2 and 4 were identified by the testimony of the supervisor and head custodian of the criminal division of the Denver District Court, the double certification failed to recite that she had custody of the records, and thus they should not have been received in evidence.

Crim.P. 27 provides for proof of records 'in the same manner as in civil cases.' While C.R.C.P. 44(a)(1) establishes a method by which official records may be admitted into evidence as self-authenticating documents, it is not the exclusive method by which such documents can be introduced. C.R.C.P. 44(c) provides expressly that proof of official records may be made by any method authorized by law. In the instant case, Exhibits 1 through 4 were admitted into evidence together. These exhibits and the authenticity of the signatures thereon were personally identified in court by the head custodian of the records. This witness testified that Exhibits 2 and 3 were made by her in the regular course of business, and that it was among her regular duties to make such copies. Exhibit 1 was further identified by the supervisor of classification records at the Colorado State Penitentiary as a document regularly received from the court at the time the prisoner is received at the institution. This witness testified that this document was maintained under his supervision at the Colorado State Penitentiary pursuant to state statute, that the original could not be removed from those files, and that there is a procedure to safeguard the accuracy of the records. Furthermore, he personally identified the defendant as the same person being held under the mittimus and testified that no other person was being held thereunder.

It is presumed in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary that a public official discharges his duties in a valid and regular manner. See Town of Frisco v. Brower, 171 Colo. 441, 467 P.2d 801. We conclude that since no such contrary evidence was produced in this case, and since these exhibits were duly authenticated by their respective custodians, they were properly admitted into evidence.

Defendant next urges that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal, in that the evidence was insufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the material element of lawful custody. Under Colorado law, 'escape' is defined as 'the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • People v. McKnight
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • April 13, 1981
    ...8); People v. Austin, 162 Colo. 10, 424 P.2d 113 (1967); Schwickrath v. People, 159 Colo. 390, 411 P.2d 961 (1966); People v. Rivera, 37 Colo.App. 4, 542 P.2d 90 (1975). The district attorney introduced the minute order and other materials to establish appellant's previous Although we agree......
  • People v. Gonzales
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • June 27, 1983
    ...to a motion for judgment of acquittal. People v. Ganatta, supra; People v. Chavez, 182 Colo. 216, 511 P.2d 883 (1973); People v. Rivera, 37 Colo.App. 4, 542 P.2d 90 (1975). This is but another way of stating that after considering the quantity and quality of all the evidence, there is subst......
  • Williams v. State, 80-1368
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • July 7, 1982
    ...United States v. DeCicco, 415 F.2d 799 (5th Cir. 1969); Harding v. State, 248 Ark. 1240, 455 S.W.2d 695 (1970); People v. Rivera, 37 Colo.App. 4, 542 P.2d 90 (1975); State v. Brothers, 472 S.W.2d 415 (Mo.1971); State v. Renstchler, 444 S.W.2d 453 (Mo.1969); State v. Ledford, 9 N.C.App. 245,......
  • People v. Freeman
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • September 6, 1983
    ...the rule that official records may also be proved by any method authorized by law. See Crim.P. 27; C.R.C.P. 44(c); People v. Rivera, 37 Colo.App. 4, 542 P.2d 90 (1975). The exhibits in this case were all identified by James Shaw, who testified that he was the official custodian of the recor......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Rule 44 PROOF OF OFFICIAL RECORD.
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Colorado Rules of Civil and Appellate Procedure (CBA)
    • Invalid date
    ...evidence as self-authenticating documents, it is not the exclusive method by which such documents can be introduced. People v. Rivera, 37 Colo. App. 4, 542 P.2d 90 (1975). Where one claims that documents were not properly authenticated under this rule, but he testifies, as of his own knowle......
  • Chapter 6 - § 6.7 • MOTOR VEHICLE RECORDS
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Colorado DUI Benchbook (CBA) Chapter 6 Evidence
    • Invalid date
    ...method authorized by law." People v. Freeman, 668 P.2d 1371, 1381 (Colo. 1983) (citing Crim. P. 27; C.R.C.P. 44(c); and People v. Rivera, 542 P.2d 90 (Colo. App. 1975)). DMV records are admissible as official records of Colorado, and copies thereof, attested by the executive director of the......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT