Sandoval v. People, 15903.
| Docket Nº | 15903. |
| Citation | 117 Colo. 588, 192 P.2d 423 |
| Case Date | March 15, 1948 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Colorado |
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.
[117 Colo. 589] 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. [192 P.2d 424]
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 [117 Colo. 590] 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pena v. State, No. 03-13.
...that it existed at the time of the act; and the intent and the act may be as instantaneous as successive thoughts. Sandoval v. People, 117 Colo. 588, 192 P.2d 423 Young v. State, 849 P.2d 754, 761 (Wyo.1993) (quoting Murry v. State, 713 P.2d 202, 207 (Wyo.1986)). See also Rude v. State, 851......
-
Siler v. State, No. 03-169.
...that it existed at the time of the act; and the intent and the act may be as instantaneous as successive thoughts. Sandoval v. People, 117 Colo. 588, 192 P.2d 423 Young v. State, 849 P.2d 754, 761 (Wyo.1993) (quoting Murry v. State, 713 P.2d 202, 207 (Wyo.1986)). See also Rude v. State, 851......
-
Young v. State, No. 91-154
...that it existed at the time of the act; and the intent and the act may be as instantaneous as successive thoughts. Sandoval v. People, 117 Colo. 588, 192 P.2d 423 Murry, 713 P.2d at 207. We emphasize that the expression requires the thoughts to be successive, not simultaneous. This connotes......
-
Mattern v. State, No. 05-218.
...at the time of the act; and the intent and the 151 P.3d 1130 act may be as instantaneous as successive thoughts. Sandoval v. People, 117 Colo. 588, 192 P.2d 423 [¶ 31] Our analysis of the evidence in the instant case differs from the analysis just recited solely in that the appellant was co......
-
Pena v. State, No. 03-13.
...that it existed at the time of the act; and the intent and the act may be as instantaneous as successive thoughts. Sandoval v. People, 117 Colo. 588, 192 P.2d 423 Young v. State, 849 P.2d 754, 761 (Wyo.1993) (quoting Murry v. State, 713 P.2d 202, 207 (Wyo.1986)). See also Rude v. State, 851......
-
Siler v. State, No. 03-169.
...that it existed at the time of the act; and the intent and the act may be as instantaneous as successive thoughts. Sandoval v. People, 117 Colo. 588, 192 P.2d 423 Young v. State, 849 P.2d 754, 761 (Wyo.1993) (quoting Murry v. State, 713 P.2d 202, 207 (Wyo.1986)). See also Rude v. State, 851......
-
Young v. State, No. 91-154
...that it existed at the time of the act; and the intent and the act may be as instantaneous as successive thoughts. Sandoval v. People, 117 Colo. 588, 192 P.2d 423 Murry, 713 P.2d at 207. We emphasize that the expression requires the thoughts to be successive, not simultaneous. This connotes......
-
Mattern v. State, No. 05-218.
...at the time of the act; and the intent and the 151 P.3d 1130 act may be as instantaneous as successive thoughts. Sandoval v. People, 117 Colo. 588, 192 P.2d 423 [¶ 31] Our analysis of the evidence in the instant case differs from the analysis just recited solely in that the appellant was co......