People v. Saiz, Nos. 80CA1176
| Docket Nº | 81CA0185 |
| Citation | 660 P.2d 2 |
| Case Date | September 02, 1982 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Colorado |
Page 2
v.
Rudy SAIZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Div. I.
As Modified on Denial of Rehearing
Oct. 28, 1982.
Certiorari Denied Feb. 22, 1983.
Page 4
J.D. MacFarlane, Atty. Gen., Richard F. Hennessey, Deputy Atty. Gen., Mary J. Mullarkey, Sol. Gen., Jeffrey Weinman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.
J. Gregory Walta, Colorado State Public Defender, Charles F. Kaiser, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, for defendant-appellant.
COYTE, Judge.
Defendant appeals from a jury verdict finding him guilty of second degree assault. We affirm.
The evidence revealed that on June 9, 1980, the defendant and another prisoner were being escorted into a courtroom. Outside the courtroom, defendant's girlfriend stepped forward and attempted to embrace the defendant. The victim, a deputy sheriff, who was guarding the defendant, attempted to separate them. Defendant turned and punched the victim and told him not to touch his girlfriend. Immediately after this incident, both defendant and the victim apologized to each other and defendant was then escorted into the courtroom.
Defendant first contends that the trial court erred in limiting the voir dire questioning of the jurors. We disagree.
Prior to the beginning of the voir dire, the trial court informed counsel that they were not to question prospective jurors on the defendant's theory of the case or ask hypothetical questions. Defense counsel, however, attempted to ask a juror a hypothetical questioning concerning the use of force to protect a third person which was defendant's theory of the case. The trial court, pursuant to its former instructions, refused to permit defense counsel to finish asking the question.
Defendant now contends that this restriction placed impermissible limitations on the voir dire questioning. This contention is, however, without merit.
Restrictions on the scope of the voir dire examination are within the trial court's discretion and will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion. People v. Brake, 191 Colo. 390, 553 P.2d 763 (1976). As stated in State v. Manley, 54 N.J. 259, 255 A.2d 193 (1969):
"In many instances it has taken as long or longer to empanel a jury as to try the case. The impression is inescapable that the aim of counsel is no longer exclusion of unfit or partial or biased jurors. It has become the selection of a jury as favorable to the party's point of view as indoctrination through the medium of questions on assumed facts and rules of law can accomplish."
The Manley court further noted the improper purpose of such questioning, as follows:
"Under the guise of eliciting information they attempt to impart to the jurors a conception of the law highly favorable to one side of the case. They invade the province of the court, are time-consuming, tend to confuse the jurors and do nothing to further the purpose of the voir dire procedure."
The Colorado Supreme Court has also recently indicated its concern with unduly lengthy voir dire examination by amending Crim.P. 24 to allow the trial court to place reasonable limitations on the time available to counsel for voir dire examination.
The trial court here, although it was concerned with the undue amount of time consumed by voir dire questioning, nonetheless gave counsel full opportunity to question jurors regarding any matters which might have shown bias or prejudice. Hence, its limitations on the use of hypothetical questions were well within its discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal.
Page 5
II
Defendant next contends that the trial court erred in excluding defendant's proffered evidence that the complaining witness did not wish to have the case prosecuted. We disagree.
The disputed evidence in question was first elicited on defendant's cross-examination of the complaining witness. In response to a question propounded by defendant, the complaining witness testified that there were no hard feelings between himself and defendant and that he and the defendant had apologized to each other following the altercation.
Defendant's girlfriend subsequently testified that the complaining witness had struck her in the neck when attempting to separate her and the defendant. She then testified that she waited four days before filing a complaint against him. The prosecution attempted to impeach her testimony by asking her why she waited four days. She replied that she did so because she wanted to see first if the complaining witness was going to file a complaint against the defendant.
Defendant objected to this testimony on the ground that it would imply that the complaining witness was the one who would decide whether to file charges when such was not the case. The court ordered the prosecution to drop the line of questioning, but allowed the testimony already presented to remain in....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reese v. State, No. 16658
...ignorant of the official capacity of the victim. 358 So.2d at 1323. See Guevara v. State, 585 S.W.2d 744 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); People v. Saiz, 660 P.2d 2 (Colo.App.1982); State v. Skinner, 118 Ariz. 517, 578 P.2d 196 (App.1978); State v. Bailey, 360 So.2d 772 (Fla.1978); Lee v. State, 368 So.2......
-
People v. Davis, No. 87SA288
...death sentence would provide little comfort to the children by urging that "justice" would indeed provide some comfort. See People v. Saiz, 660 P.2d 2 (Colo.Ct.App.1982) (prosecutor could properly make statement in rebuttal portion of closing argument in second degree assault prosecution th......
-
People v. Collins, Nos. 84SA240
...be disturbed on appeal unless an abuse of that discretion is shown. People v. Buckner, 180 Colo. 65, 504 P.2d 669 (1972); People v. Saiz, 660 P.2d 2 During the voir dire, the defense counsel asked one potential juror: Did you think sir, that someone who is attacked by someone else ought to ......
-
People v. Wentling, Court of Appeals No. 12CA1423
...to be given PSCC, that confinement must be a result of the same incident for which a defendant is to be sentenced. See People v. Saiz, 660 P.2d 2, 6–7 (Colo.App.1982). ¶ 49 The statute does not require that the offense for which the sentence is imposed be the exclusive cause of the offender......
-
Reese v. State, No. 16658
...ignorant of the official capacity of the victim. 358 So.2d at 1323. See Guevara v. State, 585 S.W.2d 744 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); People v. Saiz, 660 P.2d 2 (Colo.App.1982); State v. Skinner, 118 Ariz. 517, 578 P.2d 196 (App.1978); State v. Bailey, 360 So.2d 772 (Fla.1978); Lee v. State, 368 So.2......
-
People v. Davis, No. 87SA288
...death sentence would provide little comfort to the children by urging that "justice" would indeed provide some comfort. See People v. Saiz, 660 P.2d 2 (Colo.Ct.App.1982) (prosecutor could properly make statement in rebuttal portion of closing argument in second degree assault prosecution th......
-
People v. Collins, Nos. 84SA240
...be disturbed on appeal unless an abuse of that discretion is shown. People v. Buckner, 180 Colo. 65, 504 P.2d 669 (1972); People v. Saiz, 660 P.2d 2 During the voir dire, the defense counsel asked one potential juror: Did you think sir, that someone who is attacked by someone else ought to ......
-
People v. Wentling, Court of Appeals No. 12CA1423
...to be given PSCC, that confinement must be a result of the same incident for which a defendant is to be sentenced. See People v. Saiz, 660 P.2d 2, 6–7 (Colo.App.1982). ¶ 49 The statute does not require that the offense for which the sentence is imposed be the exclusive cause of the offender......