People v. Sanchez

Decision Date13 November 1972
Docket NumberNo. 24849,24849
Citation180 Colo. 119,503 P.2d 619
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brian SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtColorado Supreme Court

Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., John P. Moore, Deputy Atty. Gen., Eugene C. Cavaliere, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.

Rollie R. Rogers, Colorado State Public Defender, J. D. MacFarlane, Chief Deputy State Public Defendant, Kenneth J. Russell, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, for defendant-appellant.

DAY, Justice.

Defendant, Brian Sanchez, was convicted of causing death while driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor, C.R.S.1963, 40--2--10, and brings appeal to this court.

In a collision involving defendant's car and that of a Mrs. Shriver, the latter was killed and her two children were seriously injured. Before the police arrived on the scene, defendant and one Antonio Salazar, as well as the occupants of the Shriver car, had been removed to the Monte Vista Community Hospital. After observing numerous beer bottles in the Sanchez vehicle, the police went to the hospital with alcohol test equipment. Defendant and Salazar were asked, 'Who was the driver of the Sanchez vehicle?' Upon which defendant made a motion with his arm and stated 'I was.'

This was the only direct evidence that Sanchez was the driver of the Sanchez vehicle. All other witnesses to the collision were unable to definitely place him in the driver's seat. The admission by defendant that he was driving was presented to the jury by testimony of the police officer and is cited as error on the assertion that it was obtained in response to police questioning not preceded by an advisement and waiver of his rights under the Miranda decision. In addition, defendant contends that the trial court erred in failing to hold a hearing sua sponte in chambers to determine the voluntariness of any statements allegedly made by the defendant to police officers.

Both points of error are raised for the first time in this court. We have held in numerous cases that the proper procedure in this court necessitates that alleged error, including errors of a constitutional nature, be preserved by raising same by objection during the trial and by motion for a new trial. Morse v. People, 168 Colo. 494, 452 P.2d 3; Dennison v. People, 161 Colo. 546, 423 P.2d 839; Brown v. People, 158 Colo. 561, 408 P.2d 981. As we stated in Lucero v. People, 158 Colo. 568, 409 P.2d 278:

'The points advanced by the defendant are raised for the first time on this writ of error. No objection to the alleged errors was preserved by a motion to suppress, by objection to the admission of the evidence, or by motion for a new trial. * * *

* * *

* * *

'As we have pointed out in numerous prior decisions, the 'contemporaneous objection' rule and the requirement that error be preserved by raising the objection with particularity in the motion for a new trial have a salutary purpose in the orderly administration of justice in this state. These rules have often been recognized by the United States Supreme Court as adequate state grounds which prevent review of a constitutional question by that court. * * *'

If in fact there was a transgression of Miranda, it was waived by the defendant's cross-examination for purposes of credibility (and not admissibility) as to what defendant said and police asked in Monte Vista hospital. It has been held in numerous other jurisdictions that where counsel failed to object to testimony on direct examination, but cross-examined on the subject, the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • People v. Cardman, Court of Appeals No. 14CA0202
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • September 22, 2016
    ...to the use of the confession." Wainwright v. Sykes , 433 U.S. 72, 86, 97 S.Ct. 2497, 53 L.Ed.2d 594 (1977) ; People v. Sanchez , 180 Colo. 119, 122, 503 P.2d 619, 621 (1972) ("We are not prepared to say that the mere act of offering the statement into evidence is sufficient to raise an issu......
  • People v. Cardman, Court of Appeals No. 14CA0202
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • June 29, 2017
    ...to the use of the confession." Wainwright v. Sykes , 433 U.S. 72, 86, 97 S.Ct. 2497, 53 L.Ed.2d 594 (1977) ; People v. Sanchez , 180 Colo. 119, 122, 503 P.2d 619, 621 (1972) ("We are not prepared to say that the mere act of offering the statement into evidence is sufficient to raise an issu......
  • People v. Mattas
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • March 22, 1982
    ...from the defendant, the trial court had no obligation to raise the issue of voluntariness on its own motion. People v. Sanchez, 180 Colo. 119, 503 P.2d 619 (1972); Neighbors v. People, 171 Colo. 349, 467 P.2d 804 The expert testimony matching the hairs was merely corroborative of other evid......
  • People v. Martinez
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • May 10, 1976
    ...Brown v. People,158 Colo. 561, 408 P.2d 981 (1965); Zeiler v. People, 157 Colo. 332, 403 P.2d 439 (1965). See People v. Sanchez, 180 Colo. 119, 502 P.2d 619 (1972). In the instant case contemporaneous objections were made regarding all but one of the issues raised in this The appellant asse......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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