Roberts v. People

Citation11 Colo. 213, 17 P. 637
Case DateApril 03, 1888
CourtSupreme Court of Colorado

17 P. 637

11 Colo. 213

ROBERTS
v.
PEOPLE.

Supreme Court of Colorado

April 3, 1888


Error to district court, Lake county.

The indictment in this case contains two counts; charging Roberts, in the first, with the larceny of mineral ore of the value of $120, and in the second with breaking and severing ore, with intent to steal in the Forest City mine, while an employe therein; each of said offenses being a felony. The ownership of both the ore and the mine was alleged to be in the Small Hopes Consolidated Mining Company, a corporation. Upon this indictment, Roberts was tried and convicted; the jury rendering a general verdict of guilty in manner and form as charged in the indictment, and finding the value of the property stolen to be $120. A motion for a new trial was interposed and denied, and Roberts was sentenced to confinement in the penitentiary for the term of two years. C. C. Parsons and S. P. Rose appeared as attorneys to aid the prosecution. While the jury was being impaneled, Philip O'Farrel, the district attorney, asked to be excused from further service in the case, stating as the reason therefor that he had been 'retained in another cause, the facts of which were somewhat interwoven with the facts said to be involved in this case, and that he had a good deal of state business to attend to in Judge KELLOG's court.' The court granted this application, and appointed C. C. Parsons special district attorney to prosecute the case under consideration. Section 1058, Gen. St. 1883, referring to district attorneys, provides as follows: 'If the district attorney be interested, or shall have been employed as counsel, in any case which it shall be his duty to prosecute or defend, the court having criminal jurisdiction may appoint some other person to prosecute or defend the cause.' And section 1059 provides that, 'if he be sick or absent, such court shall appoint some person to discharge the duties of the office until the proper officer resume the discharge of his duties.' [17 P. 638]

[11 Colo. 215] Taylor & Ashton and Bissell & Gunnell, for plaintiff in error.

Alvin Marsh, Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM.

1. While the grounds upon which the district attorney asked to be excused from prosecuting this case are not very fully stated, there is sufficient, we think, to indicate that a statutory ground existed. It is evident that he regarded, and that the court below regarded, his retainer in another case as a disqualifying fact. So far as the grounds for the action of the court in this respect are disclosed, they do not contradict, but strengthen, the presumption that is always indulged in favor of the action of the trial court. Even if this were not the case, we are not prepared to say that a nisi prius court may not make such an appointment for good and sufficient reasons other than those specified in the statute.

2. A motion to compel a prosecutor to elect upon which count of an indictment he will proceed, when such indictment [11 Colo. 216] contains more than one count, each charging a felony, is a matter addressed to the discretion of the trial court. A court of review will not interfere, except, perhaps, where such discretion has been abused. 1 Bish. Crim. Proc. § 454; 1 Whart. Crim. Law,§ 423.

3. We see no good reason why witnesses, who have handled and become familiar with the ore taken from a certain mine, may not testify in reference to the same, for the purpose of identifying it, in the same manner and to the same extent as they are allowed to testify...

To continue reading

Request your trial
47 practice notes
  • People v. In the Interest of N.R., Case No. 05SA273 (Colo. 7/31/2006), Case No. 05SA273.
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • July 31, 2006
    ...power to protect itself and direct investigations in a manner which will render them thorough and impartial") (citing Roberts v. People, 11 Colo. 213, 17 P. 637 (1888)); Roberts, 11 Colo. at 215, 17 P. at 638 (noting that even in the absence of statutory grounds that support disqualificatio......
  • Taylor v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • April 12, 1905
    ...attorney is involved, or that his connection therewith is such that it should be investigated. [49 Fla. 84] See, also, Roberts v. People, 11 Colo. 213, 17 P. 637, and Board of County Commissioners of Hinsdale County v. Crump, 18 Colo. App. 59, 70 P. 159. The power is recognized in Montana (......
  • People v. LaRosa, No. 11SC664.
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • February 11, 2013
    ...P.2d at 899. Without corroborating evidence, a defendant's confession is insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction. Roberts v. People, 11 Colo. 213, 216, 17 P. 637, 639 (1888). The corroborating evidence “need only be slight,” but it must be sufficient “to convince the jury that the cri......
  • State v. Hambrick, 2367
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • August 3, 1948
    ...or defend, the court having criminal jurisdiction may appoint some other person to prosecute or to defend the cause. Roberts v. People, 11 Colo. 213. The principle was long ago laid down that no man can serve two masters. It is not consistent with the public interest that a prosecuting offi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
47 cases
  • People v. In the Interest of N.R., Case No. 05SA273 (Colo. 7/31/2006), Case No. 05SA273.
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • July 31, 2006
    ...power to protect itself and direct investigations in a manner which will render them thorough and impartial") (citing Roberts v. People, 11 Colo. 213, 17 P. 637 (1888)); Roberts, 11 Colo. at 215, 17 P. at 638 (noting that even in the absence of statutory grounds that support disqualificatio......
  • Taylor v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • April 12, 1905
    ...attorney is involved, or that his connection therewith is such that it should be investigated. [49 Fla. 84] See, also, Roberts v. People, 11 Colo. 213, 17 P. 637, and Board of County Commissioners of Hinsdale County v. Crump, 18 Colo. App. 59, 70 P. 159. The power is recognized in Montana (......
  • People v. LaRosa, No. 11SC664.
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • February 11, 2013
    ...P.2d at 899. Without corroborating evidence, a defendant's confession is insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction. Roberts v. People, 11 Colo. 213, 216, 17 P. 637, 639 (1888). The corroborating evidence “need only be slight,” but it must be sufficient “to convince the jury that the cri......
  • State v. Hambrick, 2367
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • August 3, 1948
    ...or defend, the court having criminal jurisdiction may appoint some other person to prosecute or to defend the cause. Roberts v. People, 11 Colo. 213. The principle was long ago laid down that no man can serve two masters. It is not consistent with the public interest that a prosecuting offi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT