Peterson v. People
| Decision Date | 19 August 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 20575,20575 |
| Parties | Earl Woodrow PETERSON, Plaintiff in Error, v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Earl Woodrow Peterson, pro se.
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Atty. Gen., John P. Moore, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for defendant in error.
We will refer to the plaintiff in error Peterson by name or as defendant, and to the defendant in error as the People.
Peterson was convicted of the burglary of a building owned by the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 9 in Grand Junction, Colorado. He is here by writ of error from that conviction.
The testimony of the People's witnesses established that at about noon on February 2, 1962, the defendant was observed in front of the building in question. His activities were described ion the following manner by James Cary who watched from his home across the street from the union building:
'Well, he had a wire, and he would stick it in the door, and he would pull on it, and then he would come back and look both ways up and down the street, and he hesitated a little bit, and he was shaping this wire, and then he would go back and try it again, and after several times like that the door came open.'
Cary proceeded to testify that the defendant then walked into the building and closed the door behind him. Thereupon, Cary telephoned a Mrs. Bowen who worked at the union building and informed her of Peterson's presence. She arrived shortly thereafter and, after she entered the building, Cary observed Peterson leave the premises in great haste.
Mrs. Bowen testified that upon her arrival at the scene she unlocked the front door, entered the lobby and then unlocked the office door. She heard a closet door close and attempted to open the same, but was unable at do so because it was being held shut by someone inside. She called the defendant by name and told him to come out of the closet, which he did. In response to Mrs. Bowen's query as to what he was doing inside the office, Peterson replied that 'He had just decided to go in and look around.' Mrs. Bowen testified that thereupon she picked up the telephone to make a call to the District Representative of the union, at which point the defendant left the office 'rapidly.'
W. W. Wallace, the District Representative of the union, testified that he had known the defendant about 15 years during which time Peterson had worked for him on various occasions. Wallace also stated that Peterson had been a frequent visitor at the union building.
The defendant took the stand and admitted his presence within the building at the time in question. He testified that the doors of the building and the office were open when he arrived at the building and that he entered and was about to make a telephone call when Mrs. Bowen arrived on the scene. He said that since he did not know who was at the door and since he had a previous criminal record he became nervous and hid in the closet. He testified further that he ran away from the building on being discovered by Mrs. Bowen for the same reason that had impelled him to hide in the closet.
During the course of the testimony, the District Attorney asked Mrs. Bowen why the policy of keeping the cash box locked in a file cabinet during the noon hour was changed so that it was placed in the office safe. The witness replied that the policy had been changed because of two prior burglaries committed in August and October of 1961. No objection was made to this testimony nor did defendant request that it be stricken. No further questions were asked on direct examination concerning the prior burglaries. On cross-examination, however, counsel for the defendant engaged in a lengthy interrogation of Mrs. Bowen concerning these burglaries and the circumstances under which they were committed.
During the interrogation of the witness Wallace, the District Attorney stated to the court:
'Now, if your Honor please, for the purpose of showing intent, design, and scheme, I should like to go into two similar transactions with this witness.'
No objection was made to this line of questioning and Wallace then testified that there were two previous burglaries in August and October of 1961 and related the manner in which entrance had been gained into the union office. He went on to testify that the defendant had been in the office on numerous occasions and knew of the office policy in regard to keeping money in the cash box and the location of the same. This was the extent of his testimony on direct examination with respect to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Kadell
...Colo. 323, 326-27, 417 P.2d 491, 493 (1966) ; Moreno v. People , 156 Colo. 503, 506, 400 P.2d 899, 900 (1965) ; Peterson v. People , 153 Colo. 23, 27-28, 384 P.2d 460, 462 (1963).15 The supreme court's pronouncements in these cases were very broad, allowing of no exceptions.16 If the McCoy ......
-
Mathis v. People
...to buttress his defense, the prosecution was entitled to elicit the verbatim statement for consideration by the jury. See Peterson v. People, 153 Colo. 23, 384 P.2d 460. Under the circumstances, we cannot say that its introduction in evidence constitutes reversible We now turn to defendant'......
-
Moreno v. People
...do not submit contentions of error unless support therefor can be found in the record. It sufficeth to refer to Peterson v. People, 153 Colo. 23, 384 P.2d 460. In his motion for new trial, defendant did, however, assert error in the admission into evidence of his shoe and samples of glass f......