People v. Walters
| Decision Date | 01 February 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 88CA0844,88CA0844 |
| Citation | 796 P.2d 13 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher James WALTERS, Defendant-Appellant. . II |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Duane Woodard, Atty. Gen., Charles B. Howe, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Richard H. Forman, Sol. Gen., and John Milton Hutchins, First Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.
David F. Vela, Colorado State Public Defender, and Jeffrey K. Holmes, Sp. Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, for defendant-appellant.
Opinion by Judge MARQUEZ.
Defendant, Christopher James Walters, appeals from a judgment of conviction and the sentence imposed for first-degree assault with provocation, a class five felony, and crime of violence, as well as from an order determining the amount of restitution. We affirm the conviction and sentence but vacate the restitution order and remand for a re-determination of the restitution.
On an evening in January 1987, defendant and another were passengers in an automobile driven by a third party. They encountered another vehicle, and a dispute arose between the various occupants of the two vehicles. The dispute escalated until ultimately, defendant, according to his testimony, got out of the car holding a gun, and put his arm across the top of the car. Defendant pulled the hammer back, and the gun subsequently discharged, causing serious bodily injury to the other vehicle's driver.
Defendant now seeks review of his conviction for first-degree assault with provocation and crime of violence.
At trial, the People called to testify one Adam Cooper, a friend of the defendant who saw him on the night in question after the shooting had occurred. Over defense counsel's objection, Cooper was brought before the jury in jail clothing. We reject defendant's claim that this was reversible error.
In People v. Romero, 694 P.2d 1256 (Colo.1985), our supreme court, relying on Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501, 96 S.Ct. 1691, 48 L.Ed.2d 126 (1976), reh'g denied, 426 U.S. 954, 96 S.Ct. 3182, 49 L.Ed.2d 1194 (1976), noted that if an objection is properly made, the (emphasis added) Here, however, the issue is whether it is reversible error for a witness to testify in prison garb, when the defendant timely objects. We conclude that, under the circumstances of this case, there was no prejudicial error.
Although some states hold to the contrary, see State v. Yates, 174 Conn. 16, 381 A.2d 536 (1977), several courts which have addressed this issue have found that permitting a prosecution witness to appear in prison attire does not constitute prejudicial error. See Tompkins v. State, 386 So.2d 597 (Fla.App.1980), petition denied, 392 So.2d 1380 (Fla.1980); People v. Sledge, 92 Ill.App.3d 1051, 48 Ill.Dec. 381, 416 N.E.2d 412 (1981); State v. Naples, 94 Ohio App. 33, 51 Ohio Ops. 263, 114 N.E.2d 302, appeal dismissed, 158 Ohio St. 231, 48 Ohio Ops. 453, 108 N.E.2d 280 (1952). We find these cases instructive and conclude that to merit reversal, defendant must demonstrate that the appearance of a witness in jail clothing sufficiently prejudiced him so that he was deprived of his right to a fair trial.
Here, defendant admits pointing the gun and pulling back the hammer. He further admits that the gun discharged while he was holding it and that the bullet struck the victim causing serious bodily injury. Besides the victim, other witnesses who were present at the scene of the shooting testified to the incident. On the other hand, the witness Cooper was the only witness dressed in jail clothing, and his testimony was relatively brief.
We conclude that, here, defendant has not demonstrated that his right to a fair trial was prejudiced.
Defendant maintains that the sentencing scheme, as applied to him, constituted a violation of equal protection. We find no reversible error in the sentence imposed.
The trial court, in imposing a sentence beyond the presumptive range, relied at least in part upon the fact that defendant was on bond at the time he committed the act in question. Defendant acknowledges that he was on bond and that he would be subject...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Pesqueira
...testifies in prison attire, however, many courts have concluded that no prejudice to the defendant results. See People v. Walters, 796 P.2d 13, 14 (Colo. App. 1990) (permitting a prosecution witness to appear in prison attire does not constitute prejudicial error); People v. Sledge, 416 N.E......
-
People v. Knight, No. 03CA1526.
...Reversal is required only if the defendant can demonstrate prejudice. Jackson v. State, supra, 698 So.2d at 1304; cf. People v. Walters, 796 P.2d 13, 14 (Colo.App.1990) (defendant must demonstrate prejudice from the denial of his request to have a prosecution witness appear in street clothe......
-
People v. Martinez
...that the appearance of the witness or co-defendant was so prejudicial that defendant was deprived of a fair trial. People v. Walters, 796 P.2d 13 (Colo.App.1990). At the time of this incident, defense counsel objected and moved for a mistrial. The trial court heard argument, took the matter......
-
People in Interest of J.L.R., 93CA1809
...here was entered without adequate notice or an opportunity to be heard, it cannot stand. See People v. Johnson, supra; People v. Walters, 796 P.2d 13 (Colo.App.1990). See also Annotation, Jurisdiction or power of juvenile court to order parent of juvenile to make restitution for juvenile's ......
-
Section 25 DUE PROCESS OF LAW.
...beyond presumptive range based in part on fact that defendant was on bond at the time he committed felony was valid. People v. Walters, 796 P.2d 13 (Colo. App. 1990). Imposition of least drastic means of punishment is not required to provide defendant due process. People v. Davis, 794 P.2d ......
-
Chapter 5 - § 5.1 • PRELIMINARY MATTERS
...of a witness in jail clothing sufficiently prejudiced him so that he was deprived of his right to a fair trial." People v. Walters, 796 P.2d 13, 14 (Colo. App. 1990). § 5.1.5—Endorsement and Sequestration of Witnesses An attempt to endorse witnesses as trial begins may cause problems. The t......