People v. Shackelford, 25212
| Decision Date | 11 June 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 25212,25212 |
| Citation | 511 P.2d 19,182 Colo. 48 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gilbert E. SHACKELFORD, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., John P. Moore, Deputy Atty. Gen., Aurel M. Kelly, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.
Rollie R. Rogers, Colo. State Public Defender, J. D. MacFarlane, Chief Dep. State Public Defender, Buron Keith Watson, Lee Blestock, Dep. State Public Defenders, Denver, for defendant-appellant.
The defendant, Gilbert E. Shackelford, was charged with robbing Patricia A. Moeller. 1967 Perm.Supp., C.R.S.1963, 40--5--1. He was tried by a jury and convicted. On appeal, he seeks a new trial on the ground that he was not given a fair trial. He claims that he was prejudiced by the presentation of evidence relating to a crime which was separate and apart from the robbery with which he was charged.
The complaining witness, Patricia Moeller, was walking with an elderly woman when two girls struck her elderly companion, knocked her down, and stole her purse. Patricia Moeller sought and obtained assistance from the residents of a nearby apartment house. When she returned and endeavored to help her aged friend, the defendant allegedly snatched Patricia Moeller's purse and fled. The two residents of the apartment house who responded to the request for help saw the second robbery and were able to apprehend the defendant. The injuries which were inflicted on the elderly woman caused her death.
In the course of the trial, defense counsel sought to have the court advise all witnesses that they should not answer any question in such a manner as to indicate that the elderly woman had died as a result of the injuries she suffered when her purse was snatched. The court declined to enter such an order but told the district attorney that he should avoid asking any questions which might lead to a mistrial.
Witnesses were sequestered by the trial judge at the request of defense counsel. Thereafter, defense counsel's questions relating to the sequestration order and the events surrounding the criminal episode brought about the answers which defense counsel claims require reversal. In the course of cross-examination, defense counsel asked a wide-open question of a witness who saw the robbery occur. The witness responded by saying that Patricia Moeller told him that her companion died from the injuries she suffered when her purse was snatched. Defense counsel did not make a contemporaneous objection or move to strike the answer. Moreover, he did not seek protective orders from the court or move for a mistrial at the time the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Horton v. Suthers
...154 Colo. 145, 147-48 389 P.2d 90, 91 (1964) (invoking the doctrine against a defendant in a civil case); People v. Shackelford, 182 Colo. 48, 50, 511 P.2d 19, 20 (1973) (invoking the doctrine against a defendant in a criminal case); Leister v. Wells, 300 Mo. 262, 254 S.W. 75 (1923) (invoki......
-
People v. Kriho
...of an error that he or she has invited or injected into the case. See People v. Zapata, 779 P.2d 1307 (Colo.1989); People v. Shackelford, 182 Colo. 48, 511 P.2d 19 (1973). Notably, in Clark v. United States, 289 U.S. 1, 53 S.Ct. 465, 77 L.Ed. 993 (1933), the leading case on contempt based o......
-
People v. Collins, s. 84SA240
...he has been the instrument for injecting error in the case; he is expected to abide the consequences of his acts. People v. Shackelford, 182 Colo. 48, 511 P.2d 19 (1973); see also United States v. Irwin, 654 F.2d 671 (10th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1016, 102 S.Ct. 1709, 72 L.Ed.2d 1......
-
People v. Foster
..., 221 P.3d 1076, 1082 (Colo.2009) (crossexamining on particular topic, although the response was impermissible); People v. Shackelford , 182 Colo. 48, 50, 511 P.2d 19, 20 (1973) (asking open-ended questions on cross-examination).¶ 27 Yet, several divisions of this court have declined to app......