People v. Shackelford, 25212

Citation511 P.2d 19, 182 Colo. 48
Case DateJune 11, 1973
CourtSupreme Court of Colorado

Page 19

511 P.2d 19
182 Colo. 48
The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee,
Gilbert E. SHACKELFORD, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 25212.
Supreme Court of Colorado, In Department.
June 11, 1973.

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, [182 Colo. 49] Chief Dep. State Public Defender, Buron Keith Watson, Lee Blestock, Dep. State Public Defenders, Denver, for defendant-appellant.

ERICKSON, Justice.

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

Page 20

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 [182 Colo. 50] question of a witness who saw the robbery occur. The witness responded by saying that Patricia Moeller told him that her...

To continue reading

Request your trial
38 cases
  • Horton v. Suthers, 00SA58.
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • January 22, 2002
    ...Gleason, 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......
  • People v. Kriho, 97CA0700.
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals of Colorado
    • April 29, 1999
    ...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 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 on juror ......
  • People v. Collins, s. 84SA240
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • December 8, 1986
    ...been the instrument for injecting Page 305 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......
  • People v. Foster, 10CA2445
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals of Colorado
    • June 6, 2013
    ..., 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......
  • 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