Ruark v. People
| Citation | 164 Colo. 257,434 P.2d 124 |
| Decision Date | 27 November 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 22522,22522 |
| Parties | Theodore Charles RUARK, Plaintiff in Error, v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Colorado |
Donald P. MacDonald, Jim R. Carrigan, James R. Blair, Boulder, for plaintiff in error.
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Atty. Gen., Robert C. Miller, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for defendant in error.
Theodore Charles Ruark brings this writ of error to a judgment sentencing him to a term of three to five years in the penitentiary for the crime of escape. He will hereafter be referred to as Ruark.
At the trial, the testimony on behalf of the People showed that on May 8, 1964, Ruark was picked up by a state patrolman approximately 12 miles from the state penitentiary. At the time he was wearing civilian clothes, and gave a false name to the arresting officer. Ruark was identified by the Deputy Warden as the person held under an authenticated copy of a mittimus introduced into evidence. The Deputy Warden also testified that Ruark had no permission to leave the penitentiary. Ruark offered no testimony on his own behalf.
Ruark now contends that the court erred in failing to grant an acquittal at the close of the People's case and in failing to specifically instruct the jury that an intent to evade the due course of justice is a necessary element of the crime of escape. Ruark did not object at the trial to the failure to give this instruction, but now contends that this Court should consider the question under the 'plain error' rule. We hold each of Ruark's claims to be without merit.
It is true, as Ruark contends, that the prosecution must prove all the essential elements of the offense. When, however, the state proves on its case in chief acts from which the jury may properly infer the elements of a crime, then the state has made a 'prima facie' case impregnable against a motion for acquittal. Proof that a regularly held prisoner was found 12 miles outside the penitentiary walls, wearing civilian clothes, and when apprehended gave a false name, is certainly sufficient evidence from which the jury, without more, could find that the prisoner had committed the statutory crime of escape. It is not necessary that the People call every employee of the penitentiary to testify that no permission was given the prisoner to leave. If the prisoner did receive permission, that information is peculiarly within the knowledge of the prisoner himself, and if he would raise the issue of permission he must go forward with some evidence of it. The trial court correctly denied the motion for acquittal.
Ruark contends that Gallegos...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sergent v. People
...In a series of decisions, we have set out the tests which are to be used in determining the merit of such a motion. Ruark v. People, 164 Colo. 257, 434 P.2d 124 (1967); McClendon v. People, Colo., 481 P.2d 715 (1971); Nunn v. People, Colo., 493 P.2d 6 (Announced January 24, The machinations......
-
People v. Small, 24791
...correct in denying the defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal. McClendon v. People, Colo., 481 P.2d 715 (1971); Ruark v. People, 164 Colo. 257, 434 P.2d 124 (1967). Having examined the other questions raised in the defendant's brief and having found them to be without merit, we Judgme......
-
Jolly v. People, 85SC265
...license revoked has been satisfactorily established. See, e.g., People v. Chavez, 182 Colo. 216, 511 P.2d 883 (1973); Ruark v. People, 164 Colo. 257, 434 P.2d 124 (1967); People v. Rivera, 37 Colo.App. 4, 542 P.2d 90 Permitting a factfinder to infer a defendant's knowledge of a license revo......
-
McClendon v. People
...whether a judgment of acquittal should be granted has been set out with clarity in previous opinions of this Court. In Ruark v. People, 164 Colo. 257, 434 P.2d 124 (1967), we 'It is true, as Ruark contends, that the prosecution must prove all the essential elements of the offense. When, how......