People v. Woll, 24758

• Citation: 178 Colo. 443,498 P.2d 935
• Decision Date: 12 June 1972
• Docket Number: No. 24758,24758
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Walter John WOLL, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Supreme Court of Colorado

Page 935

498 P.2d 935

178 Colo. 443

The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Walter John WOLL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 24758.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

June 12, 1972.

Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., John P. Moore, Deputy Atty. Gen., E. Ronald Beeks, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.

Rollie R. Rogers, Colorado State Public Defender, J. D. MacFarlane, Chief Deputy State Public Defender, Kenneth J. Russell, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, for defendant-appellant.

LEE, Justice.

Defendant-appellant, Walter John Woll, was charged in the district court of Logan County with the crimes of unnatural carnal copulation in violation of C.R.S.1963, 40--2--31, and of statutory rape in violation of C.R.S.1963, 40--2--25(1)(b). He was acquitted of the first charge and convicted of the rape charge. He seeks reversal of the judgment of conviction, alleging three grounds of error. We affirm, and remand the case for further proceedings as hereinafter noted.

I.

The first contention of error is that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction of statutory rape. We find it unnecessary to detail the evidence which supports the jury's finding of guilt; suffice it to say the evidence of the complaining witness, if believed by the trier of fact, was sufficient in all detail to support the charge of statutory rape. Her testimony was flatly contradicted by the defendant, who denied committing the act. Evidence of three prior felony convictions was introduced to impeach the credibility of the defendant. Additionally, there was medical evidence from the examining doctor that, in his examination of the victim, he found surface trauma and blood which could have been the result of an act of forcible intercourse. It was also shown that the defendant was apprehended while fleeing from the house where the rape was perpetrated.

It is not the function of this Court to reweight or reassess the credibility of the witnesses. We must uphold the verdict where, considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, it supports the verdict of the jury. Bennett v. People, 155 Colo. 101, 392 P.2d 657; Tafoya v. People, 148 Colo. 532, 366 P.2d 860.

II.

In the second argument for reversal, defendant contends that the trial court erred in allowing the district attorney to cross-examine him concerning prior felony convictions. He argues that, as a condition to permitting such testimony, the burden was upon the People to show that the defendant was properly represented by an attorney, or had waived his right to an attorney, at each of the judicial proceedings which resulted in his prior convictions. He predicates this argument on Burgett v. Texas, 389 U.S. 109, 88 S.Ct. 258, 19 L.Ed.2d 319, wherein it was held that prior felony convictions obtained in violation of Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799, could not lawfully be used, 'either to support guilt or enhance punishment for another offense.' This argument was not presented to the trial court for consideration, nor did defendant offer any evidence or tender any proof that the prior convictions admitted into evidence were obtained in violation of his constitutional right to counsel. Defendant's objection in the trial court to the use of prior convictions was a general objection that the same were improper, unfair and denied him sue process.

The United States Supreme Court, in Loper v. Beto, 405 U.S. 473, 92 S.Ct. 1014, 31 L.Ed.2d 374, held that the use of convictions constitutionally invalid under Gideon v. Wainwright, Supra, to impeach a defendant's credibility deprives him of due process of law. However, consideration of this proposition is not...