Ray v. People
| Decision Date | 01 April 1882 |
| Parties | RAY v. THE PEOPLE. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Error to District Court of Arapahoe County.
THE case is stated in the opinion.
Mr. C W. WRIGHT and Messrs. BROWNE and PUTNAM, and Messrs. MARKHAM and PATTERSON, for plaintiff in error.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL, for the people.
The plaintiff in error was indicted for the crime of forgery at the September term, 1880, of the court below, and at the January term, 1881, was tried and convicted, and by the judgment of the court was sentenced to confinement in the penitentiary for the term of three years.
It is assigned for error that the prisoner never was arraigned by and before the district court, and that he never plead or was required to plea to the indictment.
The record fails to show that the prisoner was ever arraigned upon the indictment, or required to plead thereto, but it does show that a motion to quash the indictment was pending and undecided at the time of the trial.
Our statute requires all criminal trials to be conducted according to the course of the common law, except where a different mode is pointed out. General Laws, 1877, sec. 821.
By the common law, when an offender was brought before the court on criminal process, or appeared voluntarily to answer an indictment, no trial could be had until he was duly arraigned. This consisted of calling the defendant to the bar of the court to answer the matter charged against him. The indictment was then read to him, after which it was demanded of him whether he was guilty of the crime whereof he stood charged, or not guilty. If he made no answer, or his answer was foreign to the purpose, he was said to stand mute, and the plea of 'not guilty' was entered by order of the court, and a jury was impaneled to try him.
If the prisoner answered 'not guilty,' the clerk of the assizes immediately replied in behalf of the crown, 'cul prit.,' an abbreviation signifying 'the prisoner is guilty, and the king is ready to prove him so.' This oral reply of the clerk constituted the replication to the plea and the cause was then at issue.
There were other pleas for special defenses, and, more anciently other forms to be observed, but there is no occasion to mention them in this connection.
The above are, substantially, the manner and form of arraignment and pleading in criminal cases under our statute at the present day. The arraignment and plea of not guilty, however, form the issue between the people of the state and the prisoner without the replication. The provisions of the statute (General Laws, 1877) are as follows:
Section 815. 'Upon the arraignment of a prisoner it shall be sufficient, without complying with any other form, to declare orally by himself or herself, on his or her counsel, that he or she is not guilty, which declaration or plea shall be immediately entered upon the minutes of the court by the clerk, and the mention of the arraignment, and such plea, shall constitute the issue between the people of the state and the prisoner; and if the clerk shall neglect to insert, in the minutes, the said arraignment and plea, it may and shall be done at any time by order of the court, and then the error or defect shall be cured.'
Section 816. 'In all cases where the party indicted shall, on being arraigned, obstinately stand mute, or refuse to plead, standing mute or refusing to plea shall be adjudged and taken to be a denial of the facts charged in the indictment, and the court shall order the plea of 'not guilty' to be entered on the minutes, and the trial, judgment and execution shall proceed in the same manner as it would have done had the party pleaded 'not guilty."
Mr Bishop says there cannot be a trial on the merits in a criminal case until the defendant has pleaded not guilty, or this plea has been entered for him. He further says that this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. O'Kelley
...States, 162 U. S. 625, 16 Sup. Ct. 952, 40 L. Ed. 1097; Bowen v. State, 98 Ala. 83, 12 South. 808; People v. Gaines, 52 Cal. 479; Ray v. People, 6 Colo. 231; Parkinson v. People, 135 Ill. 401, 25 N. E. 764, 10 L. R. A. 91; Johns v. State, 104 Ind. 557, 4 N. E. 153; State v. Wilson, 42 Kan. ......
-
The State v. Fitch
...on a criminal trial may in some cases be waived, but a plea is always essential. [Warren v. State, 13 Tex. Ct. App. 348; Ray v. People, 6 Colo. 231; Wharton, Crim. and Pr. 409.] The court cannot at common law supply an issue after verdict where there has been no plea (Long v. People, 102 Il......
- Fricke v. Belz
-
State v. Poynter
... ... or their silence, may be shown in evidence as inculpatory ... circumstances to be weighed and considered by the jury in ... determining the truth of the charge preferred against ... See, ... also, State v. Hill , 134 Mo. 663, 36 S.W. 223, at ... page 225; Kelley v. People , 55 N.Y. 565, 14 Am. Rep ... 342; People v. Byrne , 160 Cal. 217, 116 P. 521; ... State v. Mortensen , 26 Utah 312, 73 P. 562, 633; ... Underhill's Cr. Ev., sec. 122; Greenleaf on Evidence, ... sec. 197 ... The ... most serious contention of appellant for a reversal of the ... ...
-
Chapter 1 - § 1.4 • FIRST APPEARANCE AND ARRAIGNMENT
...People v. Lawton, 158 P. 1099 (Colo. 1916). Where the duty to arraign is imperative, failure to perform that duty is fatal. Ray v. People, 6 Colo. 231 (1882). In misdemeanor prosecutions, if the offense charged is not a level 1 drug misdemeanor, a class 1 misdemeanor, or does not have a max......