Settle v. People
| Citation | 180 Colo. 262,504 P.2d 680 |
| Decision Date | 26 December 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. C--182,C--182 |
| Parties | Roy SETTLE, Petitioner, v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Respondent. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Colorado |
Rollie R. Rogers, Colorado State Public Defender, J. D. MacFarlane, Chief Deputy State Public Defender, Thomas M. Van Cleave, III, Don L. Nelson, Deputy State Public Defenders, Denver, for petitioner.
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., John P. Moore, Deputy Atty. Gen., Jack E. Hanthorn, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for respondent.
The defendant, Roy Settle, was convicted of assault and battery in violation of C.R.S.1963, 40--2--35. After the case had been submitted to the jury for its deliberations, the foreman of the jury asked to rehear a portion of the testimony of the complaining witness, and both sides were advised of this request. The trial court, over defendant's objection, then permitted the jury to rehear some testimony by use of an electronic recording device. The defendant argues that allowing the jury to rehear this testimony constitutes reversible error, relying upon Hersey v. Tully, 8 Colo.App. 110, 44 P. 854. We do not agree, and affirm the judgment of the district court.
The overwhelming weight of authority in this county is that the reading of all or part of the testimony of one or more of the witnesses at trial, criminal or civil, at the specific request of the jury during their deliberations is discretionary with the trial court. See State v. Wolfe, 194 Kan. 697, 401 P.2d 917; State v. Hines, 6 Utah 2d 126, 307 P.2d 887; Duffey v. State, 124 Neb. 23, 245 N.W. 1; People v. Westerman, 7 A.D.2d 943, 181 N.Y.S.2d 1016; State v. Wolf, 44 N.J. 176, 207 A.2d 670; Tyler v. United States, 361 F.2d 862 (10th Cir.); United States v. Rosenberg, 195 F.2d 583 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied 344 U.S. 838, 73 S.Ct. 20, 97 L.Ed. 652. See also American Bar Association Standards, Trial by Jury, Sec. 5.2. We adhere to that standard and anything in Hersey v. Tully, Supra, which appears to be contrary to this position is specifically overruled.
It is, of course, essential that the court observe caution that evidence is not so selected, nor used in such a manner, that there is a likelihood of it being given undue weight or emphasis by the jury. This would be prejudicial abuse of discretion and constitute grounds for reversal. See Hersey v. Tully, Supra; and United States v. Johnson, 447 F.2d 31 (7th Cir.).
The only portion of the record designated here is the testimony which the trial court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Dunlap
...discretion. People v. Jenkins, 83 P.3d 1122 (Colo.App.2003); Franklin v. People, 734 P.2d 133 (Colo.App.1986); see Settle v. People, 180 Colo. 262, 504 P.2d 680 (1972)(no abuse of discretion to permit reading of testimony of complaining witness); People v. Balkey, 53 P.3d 788 (Colo.App.2002......
-
People v. DeBella, No. 06CA2630.
...Rather, the supreme court held that the proper analysis stemmed from decisions in two criminal cases, Settle v. People, 180 Colo. 262, 264, 504 P.2d 680, 680-81 (1972), and Wilson v. People, 103 Colo. 150, 157-65, 84 P.2d 463, 466-70 (1938). Those cases established several relevant principl......
-
Hardin v. Jaques
...read all or part of the testimony of one or more witnesses in response to a jury's request during its deliberations. Settle v. People, 180 Colo. 262, 504 P.2d 680 (1972); Franklin v. People, 734 P.2d 133 (Colo. App. 1986).Here, defendant did not object to the trial court's response to the j......
-
People v. Mendez
...by the jury." Frasco v. People , 165 P.3d 701, 706 (Colo. 2007) (Martinez, J., specially concurring) (quoting Settle v. People , 180 Colo. 262, 264, 504 P.2d 680, 681 (1972) ). In doing so, the district court must "assess whether the exhibit will aid the jury in its proper consideration of ......