People v. Smith, 25200
| Decision Date | 04 June 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 25200,25200 |
| Citation | 182 Colo. 31,510 P.2d 893 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael E. SMITH, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., John P. Moore, Deputy Atty. Gen., Aurel M. Kelly, Sara Duncan, Asst. Attys. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.
Rollie R. Rogers, Colo. State Public Defender, J. D. MacFarlane, Chief Deputy State Public Defender, Kenneth J. Russell, T. Michael Dutton, Deputy State Public Defenders, Denver, for defendant-appellant.
The defendant was found guilty by the court (jury waived) of second-degree burglary and theft, in violation of 1967 Perm.Supp., C.R.S.1963, 40--3--5 and 40--5--2, respectively. Concurrent sentences were imposed. A full confession of the offenses was made by the defendant, and the central issue on this appeal is whether the People presented sufficient evidence, independent of defendant's confession, to establish that a crime was committed.
We have consistently held that a confession alone is not sufficient to establish the existence of a crime. There must be independent evidence to establish the Corpus delicti. Applegate v. People, Colo., 509 P.2d 1238, announced April 30, 1973; People v. Maestas, Colo., 508 P.2d 782 (1973); Martin v. People, Colo., 499 P.2d 606 (1972); Martinez v. People, 129 Colo. 94, 267 P.2d 654 (1954). In the instant case there is sufficient evidence independent of the confession to establish the fact that the crimes had been committed by someone. Identity and specific intent were established through the confession. We therefore affirm.
The defendant was one of three prison inmates involved in the offense charged. All were scheduled for release within a short period of time.
Between 7:00 p.m., February 8, 1970, and 6:00 a.m. the following morning, the safe in the office of the Director of the Pre-parole Center was entered by some unauthorized person or persons and the strongbox, which contained $1724 in currency, was forced open and the contents removed therefrom. The money was recovered following the defendant's arrest. These facts were all established by testimony independent of defendant's confession.
The prosecution, of course, is required to prove all material elements of the offense charged. But where a confession is to be used, the Corpus delicti must be proved by evidence independent of the confession. As stated in 1 C. Torcia, Wharton's Criminal Evidence §§ 16, 17 (13th ed. 1972), the Corpus delicti of a crime minimally requires two elements: '(1) An injury which is penally proscribed--E.g., in an unlawful homicide, a person killed; in larceny, certain property missing; and (2) The unlawfulness of some person's conduct in causing that injury.' As noted, the evidence here showed that someone entered the office, opened the safe, broke into...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. White Mountain Const. Co., Inc.
... ... See Smith v. Miller, 153 Colo. 35, 39, 384 P.2d 738, 740 (1963). Therefore, because the Contribution Act ... ...
-
People v. LaRosa
...we have consistently applied this rule. See People v. Rankin, 191 Colo. 508, 510, 554 P.2d 1107, 1108 (1976); People v. Smith, 182 Colo. 31, 33, 510 P.2d 893, 894 (1973); Meredith v. People, 152 Colo. 69, 71, 380 P.2d 227, 227–28 (1963). ¶ 17 There seems to be little consensus concerning th......
- Duran v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office of State of Colo.
-
Krol v. CF&I Steel
... ... People v. Parcel of Property , 841 N.E.2d 928, 939-40 (Ill. 2005); see 1A Norman J. Singer & J.D ... See, e.g. , People v. Smith , 921 P.2d 80, 82 (Colo. App. 1996); Smith v. Colo. Dep't of Human Services , 916 P.2d 1199, 1201 ... ...