Polochio v. People
| Citation | 233 P. 833,76 Colo. 574 |
| Decision Date | 02 February 1925 |
| Docket Number | 10822. |
| Parties | POLOCHIO v. PEOPLE. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied March 2, 1925.
Department 1.
Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; George F Dunklee, Judge.
Paul Polochio was convicted of assault with intent to rape, and he brings error.
Affirmed.
James J. Sullivan, of Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Wayne C. Williams, Atty. Gen., and Joseph P. O'Connell, Asst Atty. Gen., for the People.
Plaintiff in error, 19 years old, was tried on a charge of assault with intent to rape. On a verdict of guilty he was sentenced to the state reformatory. To review that judgment he brings error. He is hereinafter referred to as defendant.
The charge was that defendant (and others) made an assault upon Ruby Sturgon with intent 'forcibly, violently, and against the will of the said Ruby Sturgon to ravish and carnally know her.' The principal errors alleged, and the only ones here necessary to notice are: (1) That the verdict is unsupported by the evidence. (2) That the venue was not proved, as laid, in the city and county of Denver. (3) That the trial court erroneously permitted the people to cross-examine their witnesses Sturgon and Russamanno. (4) That the trial court erroneously permitted the people to attempt to impeach said witnesses.
Between 11 and 12 p. m. June 25, 1923, prosecutrix, on her way from a picture show to a dance hall in the city and county of Denver, met one Julian Archaloto on the street. While talking with him an automobile stopped near by, in which were this defendant, who was the owner and driver thereof, also Dominic R. Paulino and Salvator Russamanno. These three had started out earlier with the avowed intention of finding a girl and having intercourse with her. Observing said prosecutrix they decided to make the attempt with her. In the prosecution of their plan they induced Archaloto to join. On some pretext they succeeded in getting the girl into the car, and started for the suburbs of the city. The subject of liquor was brought up, and the girl agreed to drink wine, but declined to touch 'moonshine.' The last named poison was procured however, and the prospective victim eventually well filled with it. When a lonely point in the road outside the city and county of Denver was reached, and the liquor had presumably had time to do its deadly work, the car was stopped, and, according to prearrangement, Archaloto was left alone with the girl to make the first attempt. He failed, and was followed in the same way by Russamanno and Paulino. The latter, not content to depend upon the paralyzing effect of the liquor, attempted to use actual force, whereat the girl cried out. Thereupon the others returned and defendant said, 'I don't want any rough stuff pulled off in this car.' He then got into the car alone with the prosecutrix and drove a short distance away. In a brief time the others returned. Finding the girl evidently far gone from the effects of the drug, they decided to return to the city.
The car next stopped at Berkeley Lake, within said city and county. What occurred there is in dispute, but accepting, as we are bound to assume the jury did, the evidence which supports the verdict, we learn that two officers who had heard the cries of a woman came upon the party and took it into custody. They found the prosecutrix practically helpless, physically and mentally. She was in the rear seat half on the floor of the car between Archaloto and Russamanno. The latter had her head under his arm and a bottle in his hand, and other facts and circumstances are detailed by one of the officers which justified the jury in believing that Archaloto was attempting to have intercourse with her. Defendant and Paulino were in the front seat half turned about and watching the proceedings in the back of the car. When the officers turned their spotlight on the party, defendant called out, 'Jiggers! the cop!' and Russamanno threw the bottle in the lake. This happened about 2 a. m., June 26. Archaloto, Paulino, and Russamanno were charged jointly with defendant. They entered pleas of non vult contendere, and each was called as a witness for the people on the trial of defendant. The information was sworn to by said Ruby Sturgon. Defendant did not take the stand. There was no request for oral argument here, and no reply brief was filed. No error is assigned as to any instruction given or refused, and the instructions are not abstracted. Their entire accuracy is therefore presumed.
'Rape is an act of sexual intercourse, accomplished with, by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wills v. People, 14105.
...girl would be somewhat reluctant to answer such questions. We feel that it was well within the court's power to do this. Polochio v. People, 76 Colo. 574, 233 P. 833, Wickam v. People, 41 Colo. 345, 93 P. 478. Counsel for defendant complain of a demonstration made by those in the courtroom ......
-
Andrus v. Hall, 12916.
... ... latter had evidently been relied upon. The further ... examination was not drastic and was well within the rule ... applicable. Polochio v. People, 76 Colo. 574, 233 P ... 833; Weiss v. People, 87 Colo. 44, 285 P. 162 ... 3. Some ... months prior to the collision Hall had ... ...
-
Dickson v. People
... ... court permitted counsel for the people to conduct a further ... inquiry in the nature of cross-examination and put leading ... questions. This is one of those matters, relating to the ... general conduct of trials, which rests in the sound ... discretion of the court. Polochio v. People, 76 Colo. 574, ... 578, 233 P. 833 ... 5. The ... excluded cross-examination related to an attempt to show a ... settlement. Of what does not clearly appear. But whether of ... the amount in question or some other it was equally ... immaterial. Pepper v. People, 75 Colo ... ...
-
Thistle v. People, 16041.
... ... 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 11 are abstracted. Since all instructions ... not abstracted are presumed to be correct a like presumption ... must be indulged that those not abstracted clarified the ... others if any such clarification were necessary ... Polochio ... v. People, 76 Colo. 574, 576, 233 P. 833. Again, ... defendant presented no theory of the case consistent with his ... requested instructions B and D, and there is no evidence to ... support them unless we conclude that there is a reasonable ... doubt as to whether defendant may not have ... ...