Rapue v. People
| Decision Date | 23 March 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 22646,22646 |
| Citation | 466 P.2d 925,171 Colo. 324 |
| Parties | Robert R. RAPUE, Plaintiff in Error, v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Mellman, Mellman & Thorn, Isaac Mellman, Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., John P. Moore, Deputy Atty. Gen., Paul D. Rubner, Aurel M. Kelly, Asst. Attys. Gen., for defendant in error.
Robert R. Rapue, a 32 year old judo and karate instructor, was convicted by a jury of the crime of taking indecent and improper liberties (1965 Perm.Supp., C.R.S.1963, 40--2--32) with one of his students, Norman R., age 15, Rapue, who will hereinafter be referred to as the defendant, was thereafter sentenced to a term of from six to ten years in the state penitentiary. By this writ of error the defendant now seeks reversal of the judgment and sentence thus imposed.
The various reasons advanced by counsel as to why this case should be reversed are classified as follows: (1) the generally improper conduct on the part of the district attorney throughout the course of the entire trial, including improper cross-examination, closing argument, and the like; (2) the generally improper conduct on the part of the trial judge, including what is labeled as patent inconsistency in his numerous rulings on various and sundry evidentiary matters, all of which are said to have conveyed to the jury the impression that the trial judge was biased in favor of the People's case thereby preventing the defendant from having a fair and impartial trial; and (3) the refusal of the trial court to compel the district attorney to deliver to counsel for the defendant certain notes which the district attorney made while questioning Norman a few days before trial.
We perceive no prejudicial error in the trial of this case and conclude that the judgment must be affirmed. In order to give meaning to our conclusion, brief reference to the evidence is necessary.
Norman was the only witness called by the People in their case-in-chief. Without going into detail, Norman testified that the defendant took indecent liberties with him in a room off the judo and karate gym. Norman described the room in which the indecent acts occurred as a bedroom, though the same room was euphemistically referred to by the defendant as a first aid station.
The defendant denied that he ever, at any time or in any manner, took indecent or improper liberties with Norman. To explain why Norman would accuse him of such misconduct, the defendant testified that on the very day when the offense allegedly occurred, he caught Norman stealing and that he was in the process of reporting Norman's misconduct to the latter's father when Norman retaliated by falsely accusing him. The defendant called some nine witnesses, including other judo students, parents who had brought their children to the judo classes on the day in question, and other instructors in the judo school, who generally corroborated the defendant's testimony concerning the theft allegedly committed by Norman and also offered testimony which conflicted with Norman's testimony as to the time of day when the indecent acts were claimed to have occurred.
By way of rebuttal testimony, the district attorney attempted to show that the defendant's entire case was a fabrication. And several rebuttal witnesses did testify that the defendant had importuned them to sign what the witnesses characterized as false statements...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Thatcher
...to guide the prosecutor in his examination of witnesses. Norman v. People, 178 Colo. 190, 496 P.2d 1029 (1972); Rapue v. People, 171 Colo. 324, 466 P.2d 925 (1970). However, notes are discoverable if they are in substance recitals of oral statements made by witnesses. Goodwin v. District Co......
-
People v. District Court of El Paso County, 89SA132
...Israel, Criminal Procedure 497-98 (1984); see Norman v. People, 178 Colo. 190, 195, 496 P.2d 1029, 1031 (1972); Rapue v. People, 171 Colo. 324, 328, 466 P.2d 925, 927 (1970); Hopper v. People, 152 Colo. 405, 411, 382 P.2d 540, 543 (1963); see also Annotation, Right of Defendant in Criminal ......
-
People v. Reed
...remarks, which questioned the ethics of defense counsel, may have been improper, they do not require reversal. See Rapue v. People, 171 Colo. 324, 466 P.2d 925 (1970). The jury was contemporaneously instructed that the arguments were not evidence, and we must presume that the jury followed ......
-
State v. Johnson
...nor could the report be classified as "work product." Cf. Adams v. State (1970), 254 Ind. 509, 260 N.E.2d 878; Rapue v. People (1973), 171 Colo. 324, 466 P.2d 925. Rather, the report contained a substantially verbatim recital of the witness' statement written in the narrative form. We hold,......
-
Defending the Client Charged With Dui
...Mathew Bender, New York, 1971. 8 C.R.S. 1963, 13-5-30(3)(b). 9 See Bayer v. United States, 331 U.S. 532 (1947). 10 See Rapue v. People, 171 Colo. 324, 466 P.2d 925 (1970); and People ex rel. Shinn v. District Court, Colo., 469 P.2d 732 (1970). 11 Colorado Department of Health Rules and Regu......