People v. Schlegel, 78-772

• Decision Date: 25 September 1980
• Docket Number: No. 78-772,78-772
• Citation: 622 P.2d 98
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Douglas Scott SCHLEGEL, Defendant-Appellant. . II
• Court: Colorado Court of Appeals

Page 98

622 P.2d 98

The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Douglas Scott SCHLEGEL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 78-772.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. II.

Sept. 25, 1980.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 30, 1980.

J. D. MacFarlane, Atty. Gen., Richard F. Hennessey, Deputy Atty. Gen., Stephen R. Higgins, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.

J. Gregory Walta, Colo. State Public Defender, William L. Hunnicutt, Sp. Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, for defendant-appellant.

RULAND, Judge.

Defendant, Douglas Scott Schlegel, appeals his conviction by a jury for holding hostages, attempted escape, and assault in the second degree. We affirm.

Evidence presented by the People shows that on August 13, 1977, Schlegel was confined in the Larimer County jail on a warrant charging him with first degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and second degree kidnapping. On that date, Schlegel and another inmate attempted to escape when a jailer opened their cell to deliver a pizza. Schlegel subdued the jailer by shoving her down on the floor, tying her hands, and gagging her. A second jailer heard the commotion and went to assist, but he was also captured and bound. However, other officers appeared, and both Schlegel and the other inmate were recaptured and returned to their cell.

Schlegel first contends that his counsel should have been permitted to cross-examine the jailer who opened the cell door in order to impeach her credibility by showing that she had been reprimanded by her superior for carelessness. The trial court sustained the People's objection on the grounds of irrelevance.

We recognize that the right of a criminal defendant to confront an accuser includes the right to a liberal cross-examination of the People's witnesses. People v. Crawford, 191 Colo. 504, 553 P.2d 827 (1976). Extensive cross-examination of the jailer was permitted including questions regarding her attitude towards Schlegel. In addition, evidence pertaining to the assault and the gagging of the jailer during the escape was uncontroverted, and any motive for revenge would not have been made materially stronger by evidence of a personal reprimand. Hence, we do not view the limitations placed upon the cross-examination of this witness as reversible error. See Johnson v. People, 171 Colo. 505, 468 P.2d 745 (1970).

Schlegel's next contention is that the trial court erred in allowing into evidence a series of photographs of the jail area taken immediately after the escape attempt. Earlier, in response to a defense motion for disclosure of photographs, defendant's counsel received a report which included a reference to "photographs of blood samples taken." However, it was not until late on the evening before trial that defense counsel was provided with an additional report indicating the exact nature of these photographs. The report revealed that they were a series of photos of the jail area containing a view of a substance which appeared to be blood. It is apparently this portion of the pictures which the defendant finds prejudicial.

While we do not condone the prosecution's failure to comply with the discovery order, see Crim.P. 16, Part I(b)(3) and Crim.P. 16, Part I(d)(1), we do not view this non-compliance as reversible error. The inadequacy of the photographs' description appears to have been an oversight, the evidence was cumulative of testimony already given, and no prejudice to Schlegel otherwise appears from the record. See People v. Morgan, 189 Colo. 256, 539 P.2d 130 (1975); People v. Grubbs, 39 Colo.App. 436, 570 P.2d 1299 (1977).

Schlegel also asserts that the trial court erred in requiring him to wear a leg restraint during his trial. The record reflects that after the jury was selected and during the course of the trial, the sheriff requested, through the district attorney's office, that some kind of restraint...