Robinson v. People

Decision Date05 January 1925
Docket Number11130.
Citation232 P. 672,76 Colo. 416
PartiesROBINSON v. PEOPLE.
CourtColorado Supreme Court

Department 3.

Error to District Court, Pueblo County; James A. Park, Judge.

Henry Robinson was convicted of first degree murder, and he brings error and applies for supersedeas.

Application denied, and judgment affirmed.

John B. Barnard and George Penney, both of Pueblo for plaintiff in error.

Wayne C. Williams, Atty. Gen., and Joseph P. O'Connell, Asst Atty. Gen., for the People.

ALLEN J. (sitting for TELLER, C.J.).

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was convicted of murder in the first degree. The jury fixed the penalty at life imprisonment, and defendant was accordingly sentenced to the state penitentiary for life. He has sued out this writ of error, and applies for a supersedeas.

The information charged the defendant jointly with one Pearl Horton with the murder of William Wright. Each defendant moved for a separate trial. The motions were overruled and the accused were tried jointly. At the close of the evidence there was a dismissal as to the defendant Horton.

The instructions to the jury comprised ones dealing with the crime of murder in the first degree. These were objected to upon the ground that the evidence is insufficient to prove murder in the first degree. An assignment of error concerning this instruction, and other assignments, raise the question whether there is sufficient evidence to support a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree. The contention is that the element of premeditation was not proven.

So far as the facts of this case are concerned, murder in the first degree is defined as 'all murder which shall be perpetrated * * * by any kind of willful, deliberate and premeditated killing.' Section 6665, C. L. 1921. The homicide occurred at the home of the mother of deceased. There was there a disturbance created by some heated conversation carried on by Pearl Horton and the wife of William Wright. Wright requested Pearl Horton and some other visitors, including the defendant who is plaintiff in error here, to leave the house. As such visitors were leaving, the defendant drew a pistol from his pocket. The weapon was discharged, the bullet striking William Wright. There was introduced in evidence the dying declaration of William Wright. It is stated therein that there 'were words' between Mrs. Wright and Pearl Horton; that Wright the declarant, tried to push all of the visitors out of the house, and then defendant shot him. Wright heard the defendant say, 'Don't hit that woman.' Wright was unarmed, and was taking peaceable means to eject the visitors. There was no provocation for the killing. Such are the circumstances cited by plaintiff in error in support of his contention that no premeditation was shown.

In Wharton on Homicide (2d Ed.) § 180, the author says:

"Premeditated' does not require positive proof of an intent prior to the commission of the act, as such prior intent may be inferred from the act.'

In Van Houton v. People, 22 Colo. 53, 43 P. 137, it is said:

'In this case the proof must establish deliberation and premeditation to support the verdict. Time, however, is not essential if there was a design and determination to kill formed in the mind of the defendant previous to or at the time the mortal wound was given. It matters not how short the interval, if it was sufficient for one thought to follow another, and the defendant actually formed the design to kill, and deliberated and premeditated upon such design before firing the fatal shot, this was sufficient to raise the crime to the highest grade known to the law.
'By the statute the jury are expressly authorized to designate the degree in case murder is established. * * * Under these acts premeditation and deliberation are matters of inference and presumption to be drawn by the jury from the facts and circumstances leading up to, surrounding and explanatory of the homicide.'

The defendant's being armed, and his use of a deadly weapon, was evidence of intent. 30 C.J. 290. The act of killing, and the fact that some time elapsed after Wright sought to eject Pearl Horton, a friend of plaintiff in error, before the shot was fired, are circumstances from which premeditation may be inferred. We cannot say as a matter of law that premeditation was not shown, or that the verdict is not warranted by the evidence.

Error is assigned to the court's refusal to take from the consideration of the jury certain evidence in so far as it affects the defendant Robinson. The evidence in question related to conversations between the wife of deceased and the defendant Horton, not in the presence of defendant Robinson, and to animus existing between defendant Horton and the wife of the deceased. We do not think this evidence was prejudicial to plaintiff in error. The court's failure to instruct the jury to limit this evidence as applicable to defendant Horton only was not reversible error as to the plaintiff in error.

Before the trial the plaintiff in error. filed his motion for a separate trial. Error is assigned to the court's overruling the motion.

The motion was based on section 7097, C. L. 1921, which reads as follows:

'When two or more defendants are jointly indicted for
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Kolkman v. People
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • May 11, 1931
    ...and prejudicial evidence so as to advise the trial court in determining the question of granting or denying the motion. Robinson v. People, 76 Colo. 416, 419, 232 P. 672; Garcia People, 88 Colo. 267, 295 P. 491. The defendant seeks to avoid the rule announced in the Robinson and Garcia Case......
  • State v. Hargraves
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • November 6, 1940
    ... ... closely related as to form a part of the res gestae ... ( State v. Taylor, 7 Idaho 134, 61 P. 288; People ... v. Ah Choy, 1 Idaho 317; 8 R. C. L. 192, sec. 188; vol ... 1, Wharton's Crim. Ev. 494; People v. Lane, 100 ... Cal. 379, 34 P. 856; State ... 610, 76 P.2d 493; People v. McNeer , 14 Cal.App.2d ... 22, 57 P.2d 1018; State v. Randolph , 49 Nev. 241, ... 242 P. 697; Robinson v. People , 76 Colo. 416, 232 P ... 672; 26 Am. Jur. 470, sec. 455; 20 Am. Jur. 1067, sec. 1216.) ... We are convinced there is sufficient ... ...
  • Padilla v. People
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • May 4, 1970
    ...testimony admissible against the co-defendant but not admissible as to him. Brown v. People, 124 Colo. 412, 238 P.2d 847; Robinson v. People, 76 Colo. 416, 232 P. 672. The trial court correctly held that the grounds upon which the motion for severance were predicated were not sufficient to ......
  • Hammil v. People
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • March 13, 1961
    ...first of all that this instruction has been upheld many times in the past Van Houton v. People, 22 Colo. 53, 43 P. 137; Robinson v. People, 76 Colo. 416, 232 P. 672; Maestas v. People, 91 Colo. 36, 11 P.2d 227; Sandoval v. People, 117 Colo. 588, 192 P.2d 423. It is almost universally held t......
  • 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