Schechtel v. People

• Decision Date: 08 January 1940
• Docket Number: 14647.
• Citation: 105 Colo. 513,99 P.2d 968
• Parties: SCHECHTEL v. PEOPLE.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

99 P.2d 968

105 Colo. 513

SCHECHTEL v. PEOPLE.

No. 14647.

Supreme Court of Colorado

January 8, 1940

Rehearing Denied March 4, 1940.

Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; Floyd F. Miles Judge.

Harry Schechtel was convicted of unlawfully conspiring to commit a felony, to wit, utter a forged and fictitious bond, and he brings error.

Affirmed.

Moynihan-Hughes, of Montrose, for plaintiff in error.

Byron G. Rogers, Atty. Gen., and Gerald E. McAuliffe, Ass't.Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

OTTO BOCK, Justice.

Plaintiff in error, to whom we hereinafter refer as defendant, was indicted with four others for unlawfully conspiring to commit a felony, to-wit, utter a forged and fictitious bond.There of the defendants testified in behalf of the people.Defendant was convicted and sentenced, and he is here seeking reversal.

The errors asserted by defendant may be comprehended in two grounds: First, that certain testimony relating to the commission of other offenses was improperly admitted over the objection defendant; and, second, that the evidence was wholly insufficient to justify a verdict of guilty against defendant.The evidence to which defendant objected and to the admission of which he duly excepted, is set forth in full in his motion for a new trial.We deem it unnecessary to detail it here.The only reference to other crimes was in the testimony of the accomplices, and related to defendant's business activities, indicating that some of them were not legitimate.The purpose of that testimony, as disclosed by the record, was to show defendant's financial status and difficulties, and his motive in entering into the conspiracy charged.His financial liabilities were large and, in comparison, his assets were very small.This evidence, in view of the other testimony in the case, was clearly material and admissible for such purposes.Helser v. People,100 Colo. 371, 390, 391, 68 P.2d 543.The record also discloses that in passing on objections of defendant to testimony offered on behalf of the people, the trial judge was eminently fair to defendant in his rulings and that he specifically and properly limited the application of the questioned evidence in his instructions.

In support of defendant's second contention it is argued that the evidence for the state was so incredible that the trial court should not have permitted a conviction based thereon to stand.The credibility of...