Sandoval v. People

• Decision Date: 15 March 1948
• Docket Number: 15903.
• Parties: SANDOVAL v. PEOPLE.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

192 P.2d 423

117 Colo. 588

SANDOVAL v. PEOPLE.

No. 15903.

Supreme Court of Colorado, en Banc.

March 15, 1948

Rehearing Denied April 12, 1948.

Error to District Court, Las Animas County; John L. East, Judge.

Pete Sandoval was convicted of murder in the first degree and he brings error.

Judgment affirmed.

HILLIARD and HAYS, JJ., dissenting.

V. G Seavy and Walter Predovich, both of Pueblo, for plaintiff in error.

H. Lawrence Hinkley, Atty. Gen., Duke W. Dunbar Deputy Atty. Gen., and James S. Henderson, Asst. Atty. Gen for defendant in error.

LUXFORD Justice.

Plaintiff in error, Pete Sandoval, hereinafter designated defendant was convicted of the crime of murder in the first degree and sentenced to imprisonment for life. He brings the case here for review alleging points of error which we consider under: (1) The evidence was insufficient to support a conviction of murder of the first degree; (2) the verdict was based upon false and perjured testimony; and (3) the court erred in refusing to give defendant's tendered instructions.

The record discloses that about 4:30 o'clock on the afternoon of April 16, 1946, defendant arrived at a tavern in Trinchera, Colorado, where Tito Sandoval, hereinafter called Tito, and others were drinking beer. Tito had been drinking there for more than two hours Before defendant arrived. They all continued to drink for a time when Tito, seeming 'to be drunk,' called defendant 'bad names.' Defendant left the tavern, but returned later, when Tito again called him 'bad names.' Thereafter defendant armed himself with a gun. The circumstances under which he did so were stated by him on the witness stand as follows:

'Q. When you got out of the car, did you put it [the gun] in your boot? A. Not right away. I took it out after.

'Q. You went inside first to see what was going on, and then you came out and got it, is that it? A. Yes.

'Q. When did you get it, get the gun? A. The second time I came back. * * *

'Q. About six o'clock you came out and put the gun in your boot? A. Yes.

'Q. Had you talked to Tito then? A. I talked to him Before . * * *

'Q. You thought you were going to get into a fight, did you? That is the reason you put your gun in your boot, wasn't it? A. No. The reason I got it from the car, because Urbano Sanchez was there, and some little kids. I didn't want nobody to go and steal it.

'Q. You had your car locked, didn't you? A. No; it didn't work. The lock don't work.' Inside the tavern Tito again called defendant more 'bad names,' and the latter told Tito he did not care to have any trouble in there, and several witnesses testified that he said 'let's go outside.' This, defendant denied, and stated that Tito was the one who made the suggestion. In any event they went out, defendant first, then deceased, followed by others. Defendant says Tito struck him on the shoulder as they went out. If this occurred, none of the other witnesses testified to seeing it. Defendant ran or backed away followed by Tito. After they had gone some distance, defendant testified that Tito drew a pocket knife, whereupon he took his gun from his boot, fired one shot, warned Tito not to come close, then shot again. Other witnesses standing close by say that defendant fired three shots, one after another, that one or more of them struck Tito who fell dead. It was dusk, but not dark, and none of the witnesses saw Tito have a knife, nor was any knife thereafter found on or about his body. Immediately following the shooting defendant fled, but, after a few days, surrendered to the sheriff.

1. It is contended that there is no proof of first degree murder in this case, and that the court erred in giving instructions covering that subject. With this we do not agree. Similar cases have been Before this court in which verdicts of first degree murder have been upheld. In Patton v. People, 74 Colo. 322, 324, 221 P. 1086, 1087, we said: 'The defendant, at the trial, contended that he shot Menschew in self-defense, and there is evidence that the deceased and Meeter were pursuing defendant, and that he was trying to get away. The evidence was conflicting, but, after a thorough examination of all the evidence, we find there was ample to sustain the verdict, and we cannot disturb it. * * * The defendant's own testimony * * * shows that he had entertained no ill feeling toward the deceased, and that he could not imagine, what, if anything, the deceased had against him. * * * Finding no reversible error in the record, this supersedeas is denied, and the judgment affirmed.'

Again in Robinson v. People, 76 Colo. 416, 417, 232 P 672, we quoted from Wharton on Homicide (2d Ed.) § 180 as follows: "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.' And continuing we said: '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...