People v. Triggs, 26165
| Decision Date | 22 March 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 26165,26165 |
| Citation | 190 Colo. 386,547 P.2d 1282 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oscar W. TRIGGS, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
John P. Moore, Atty. Gen., John E. Bush, Deputy Atty. Gen., E. Ronald Beeks, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.
Rollie R. Rogers, Colorado State Public Defender, James F. Dumas, Jr., Chief Deputy State Public Defender, Thomas M. Van Cleave III, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, for defendant-appellant.
After trial to the court, the defendant was found guilty of burglary in which a television set and a number of other items were taken from a residence. On this appeal, the defendant maintains that the trial court erred in denying his motions for judgment of acquittal at the close of the prosecution's case and at the conclusion of all the evidence. We agree. This record reveals that the evidence lacks the sufficiency to sustain this conviction as a matter of law. We therefore reverse the judgment of the trial court.
In brief, the evidence presented at trial showed that between 11:00 a.m. and noon, a house was burglarized and a television set and various other items were taken. A neighbor observed a boy and girl in the neighborhood trying the back doors to various houses. They were not, however, observed in the back yard of the burglarized house. This same witness saw the same boy and girl somewhat later putting something about 'two feet by two feet' into the trunk of a car belonging to the defendant's father. This witness then observed the defendant join the boy and girl at the car, saw the defendant look into the open trunk, and then saw the defendant drive the car away with the boy and girl in it. Another witness, a neighbor friend of the defendant's, saw the defendant about 12:30 p.m. with 'a girl and another guy' standing at the back of the car and observed that the defendant was holding what appeared to be a television set. This witness, age nineteen, made this observation from the back porch of his home. This witness also testified that when the defendant noted his appearance on the back porch, he said 'Remember, Michael, you didn't see nothing.' This witness then walked back into his house.
Later, on the same day, the defendant was arrested in his father's car. No television set or any of the other items taken from the burglarized residence were recovered.
The defendant testified in detail as to his activities during the pertinent period. He also confirmed the fact that he told his friend to remember that he didn't see anything. The defendant related that he was using his father's car without permission and that was the purpose of the admonition which he made to his neighbor friend. He also related putting a case of pop in the trunk of the car at the time involved. He denied any implication in any neighborhood burglary.
The theory of the prosecution's case, which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Allen
...prosecution's own evidence establishes a reasonable doubt respecting defendant's participation in a criminal act. See People v. Triggs, 190 Colo. 386, 547 P.2d 1282 (1976). The People argue that the defendant's guilt is established by the principle that the unexplained possession of recentl......