Shreeves v. People
| Decision Date | 27 October 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 16903,16903 |
| Parties | SHREEVES v. PEOPLE. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Coit & Graham, Grand Junction, for plaintiff in error.
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., H. Lawrence Hinkley, Deputy Atty. Gen., Norman H. Comstock, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.
Dale Shreeves, plaintiff in error here, was charged in a two count information with an assault with intent to commit murder and assault with a deadly weapon with intent to commit upon the person of another a bodily injury; both counts being under the provisions of section 67, chapter 48, '35 C.S.A.
Upon trial before a jury defendant was found not guilty of an assault with intent to murder and found guilty of the second court of the information. He was sentenced to a term in the county jail and fined. He is here by writ of error seeking a reversal of the judgment.
The only evidence introduced at the trial may be thus summarized: Defendant and his wife and Louis Richard Morrisette, defendant's brother-in-law, were celebrating New Year's Eve in a tavern in Grand Junction and were imbibing freely of intoxicating liquors. Morrisette had planned to leave that evening for Denver, but, upon his plans being changed, it was suggested that his wife be called at her home and brought to the tavern to join the party. Morrisette's wife, upon joining the party, was plied with liquor so as to 'catch up' with the rest of them. Some time after midnight it was discovered that defendant had left the tavern. His wife suggested that she and the Morrisettes drive to the home of Mrs. C., who, while her husband was in the army, lived with her two minor children some distance from the tavern.
Defendant reached Mrs. C's home shortly before 2 A.M. He aroused Mrs. C and gave her some toys which he had brought for her two children. After Mrs. C had made herself presentable, he entered the home and made some inquiry about a business proposition in which he was attempting to assist her. He had in his possession a 'pistol' which Mrs. C suggested that he place upon the buffet, and with this suggestion he complied.
Shortly thereafter defendant's wife and the Morrisettes arrived at Mrs. C's home. Defendant's wife alighted from the car and approached Mrs. C's house; she tore off a screen door, broke the glass in the kitchen door, and entered the house where she found defendant and Mrs. C in the lighted kitchen. She was hysterical, boisterous, drunk and weeping, and, in breaking the glass in the door, she had cut her arm. Defendant and Mrs. C tried to stem the flow of blood. Defendant inquired of his wife who had brought her out there, and her answer was 'Some friends.' Defendant then left the house and went out to the automobile in which Morrisette and his wife had been seated. Morrisette was standing outside the car lighting a cigarette. The night was very dark, but he saw defendant approach with his hands in the air exclaiming, 'Troubles, troubles, troubles--that's all I have,' and asked Morrisette, 'Red, what did you bring them out here for?' Morrisette made no reply but stated, 'You make your own trouble.'
At the time of this episode between Morrisette and defendant, defendant was on the left hand side of the car, at a distance of about fifteen feet from Morrisette. Morrisette got back into his automobile, and, as he was doing so, he found his wife leaving the car on her side thereof. He made an unsuccessful attempt to prevent her from doing so. Almost immediately after Mrs. Morrisette left the car she fell and said that she had been shot, to which Morrisette answered, 'No, I don't think you are shot, you are drunk.' Upon reaching his wife he found that she was bleeding. Defendant, with the assistance of Morrisette, carried her into Mrs. C's home, and shortly thereafter she was removed by ambulance to a hospital in Grand Junction. A bullet had entered the back of her neck.
Mrs. Morrisette testified that she didn't see defendant; heard no conversation between him and her husband, and didn't hear any shot fired. Her husband tesified that although defendant was within fifteen or twenty feet of the automobile in which he and his wife sat, he didn't see or hear any shot fired, and he didn't see any 'pistol' in defendant's possession at any time.
The physician who attended Mrs. Morrisette at the hospital removed some pieces of a bullet from her neck, and the remainder thereof was removed by another physician in Denver.
Mrs. Morrisette and Mrs. C both testified that defendant did not display any anger and was quest in his manner and friendly in his attitude. Mr. and Mrs. Morrisette testified that friendly relations existed between then and the defendant at all times before and subsequent to the offense charged, and that he had been helpful to them in many ways.
A neighbor of Mrs. C's, after Mrs. Morrisette had been removed to Mrs. C's home, saw defendant with his wife at their automobile, which had been parked first in front and then removed by defendant to the back of Mrs. C's home, at which time he testified defendant stated, 'It's an automatic that goes off easy.' Whereupon the witness asked defendant if he had a gun, and defendant replied 'No.' This witness testified that he saw a holster in defendant's automobile but did not go over to investigate it. No 'Pistol' was produced at the trial, and the only evidence of plaintiff's possession of any such 'pistol' was that of Mrs. C, who testified that it was on the buffet, and there is no evidence whatever that it was ever removed therefrom.
A deputy sheriff testified that he made an investigation of defendant's car and found a holster therein holding .22 shells 'which are handled in a .22 automatic,' and that the holster and belt were in the glove compartment of defendant's automobile. Mrs. C testified that on prior occasions she had seen a 'pistol' in defendant's automobile.
At the conclusion of the People's case, defendant interposed a motion for a directed verdict, and during the argument thereon the district attorney stated with reference to intent, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. People
...intent, which is a required element of assault. This Court dealt with the problem of proof of specific intent in Shreeves v. People, 126 Colo. 413, 249 P.2d 1020 (1952), and 'Where a crime consists of an act combined with a specific intent, the intent is just as much an element of the crime......
-
Gonzales v. People
...People, Colo., 439 P.2d 342; Vigil v. People, 158 Colo. 268, 406 P.2d 100; Armijo v. People, 157 Colo. 217, 402 P.2d 79; Shreeves v. People,126 Colo. 413, 249 P.2d 1020; Funk v. People, 90 Colo. 167, 7 P.2d In Funk, supra, this court stated: 'If the legislature had deemed it advisable to do......
-
People v. Braly
...the act is committed is the gist of the offense. Armijo v. People, 157 Colo. 217, 402 P.2d 79 (1965). This court in Shreeves v. People, 126 Colo. 413, 249 P.2d 1020 (1952), quoted People v. Hopper, 69 Colo. 124, 169 P. 152, with approval, "Where a crime consists of an act combined with a sp......
-
People v. Olinger, 25064
...which is incumbent upon the People to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Armijo v. People, 157 Colo. 217, 402 P.2d 79; Shreeves v. People, 126 Colo. 413, 249 P.2d 1020. Reviewing all the evidence, we conclude that there was evidence sufficient to submit to the jury of defendant's specific int......
-
ARTICLE 3
...consists of an act combined with a specific intent, the intent is just as much an element of the crime as is the act. Shreeves v. People, 126 Colo. 413, 249 P.2d 1020 (1952). "Specific", as applied to intent to do great bodily harm is an adjective which distinguishes the intent to do great ......
-
ARTICLE 3 OFFENSES AGAINST THE PERSON
...consists of an act combined with a specific intent, the intent is just as much an element of the crime as is the act. Shreeves v. People, 126 Colo. 413, 249 P.2d 1020 (1952). "Specific", as applied to intent to do great bodily harm is an adjective which distinguishes the intent to do great ......