Silva v. People, 22804
| Decision Date | 06 October 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 22804,22804 |
| Citation | 170 Colo. 152,459 P.2d 285 |
| Parties | Crist SILVA, also known as Chris Silva and Crist Donald Silva, Plaintiff in Error, v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Lincoln D. Coit, Grand Junction, John A. Purvis, L. Thomas Woodford, Daniel J. Sears, Univ. of Colo. School of Law, Boulder, for plaintiff in error.
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., John P. Moore, Deputy Atty. Gen., Geo. E. DeRoos, Asst. Atty. Gen, Denver, for defendant in error.
By direct information one Crist Silva was charged with the burglary of the Royal Flush Lounge, situate on the outskirts of Grand Junction. In the same information, but in separate counts, Silva was also charged under the Habitual Criminal Act (C.R.S. 1963, 39--13--1 through 3) with having previously suffered three felony convictions. Trial by jury culminated in a verdict finding Silva guilty of burglary and in a subsequent proceeding before the same jury verdicts were returned finding that Silva had suffered the three previous felony convictions. Pursuant to the provisions of our Habitual Criminal Act, Silva was then sentenced to a life term in the state penitentiary. By the present writ of error Silva now seeks reversal of the judgment and sentence thus imposed upon him.
Silva initially contends that the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain his conviction for burglary, and in so doing he takes particular aim at certain fingerprint evidence introduced by the People upon the trial of this matter. His position in this regard is that under the circumstances of the case the fingerprint evidence was really of very little probative value. Our examination of the record convinces us, however, that there is sufficient evidence to support Silva's conviction for burglary, even assuming for the sake of argument that the fingerprint evidence was the only incriminating evidence introduced against him. To demonstrate that such is the case, brief reference will now be made to the evidence adduced upon trial.
The Royal Flush Lounge was forcibly entered by some person or persons in the early morning hours, entry having been gained by breaking a window. A merchant policeman making his rounds discovered the burglary and reported the incident to the local sheriff's office. It was an Officer Williams who responded to the call of the merchant police.
Upon trial Williams testified generally as to just what he found at the scene upon his arrival. For some specifics, the officer testified that he noted lying on the floor of the lounge an empty coin box which obviously had been forcibly pried from a nearby cigarette machine. The officer who claimed considerable experience in the art of 'lifting' fingerprints then went on to relate how he lifted two good prints from the aforementioned coin box. Upon trial an admitted expert in fingerprint comparison testified that the prints thus lifted from the coin box were Silva's prints, basing his conclusion upon the comparison of the lifted prints with certain known prints of Silva.
Also, there was testimony that this cigarette machine took pennies, nickels, dimes and quarters. Silva was arrested a few hours after the discovery of the burglary and when arrested he had on his person $8.58 in pennies, nickles, dimes and quarters.
And this was about the extent of the incriminating evidence offered by the People. Silva determined to exercise one of his constitutional rights and elected not to testify in his own behalf. However, by other witnesses, mainly relatives, he attempted to establish an alibi. Also, in an effort to explain his possession of pennies, nickles, dimes and quarters, there was testimony that Silva had been a big winner in a penny ante poker game two nights before the burglary.
In an effort to explain the presence of Silva's prints on the coin box, it is suggested in Silva's brief that possibly Silva touched the coin box when, after his arrest, he was being transported in the sheriff's car to the county jail. This obviously is a bit of wishful thinking, as there is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Gutierrez
...the "duly authenticated" requirement of the statute. See Brown v. People, 124 Colo. 412, 238 P.2d 847 (1951); see also Silva v. People, 170 Colo. 152, 459 P.2d 285 (1969). B. The defendant also objects to the admission of his California prison records because they reflect that his convictio......
-
Banks v. People, 82SC375
...impressed at a time other than the time at which the crime was committed. People v. Ray, 626 P.2d 167 (Colo.1981); Silva v. People, 170 Colo. 152, 459 P.2d 285 (1969). There is a substantial difference, however, between the legal sufficiency of evidence to support a conviction and the legal......
-
Hervey v. People
...out the possibility that they could have been impressed at a time other than the time when the crime was committed. Silva c. People, 170 Colo. 152, 459 P.2d 285 (1969; Accord, State v. Tew, 234 N.C. 612, 68 S.E.2d 291 (1951). See also, 28 A.L.R.2d 1149--1157. The determination of whether th......
-
Com. v. Cichy
...box in burglarized home); Correll v. State, 475 S.W.2d 209 (Tenn.Cr.App.1971) (prints on vending machine cannister); Silva v. People, 170 Colo. 152, 459 P.2d 285 (1969); (Prints on coinbox from cigarette However, if the prints are discovered on an object that is readily Movable and In commo......
-
Colorado's Habitual Criminal Act: an Overview
...41. Brown, supra, note 35. *42. Id.; Renfrow, supra, note 7. C.R.S. 1973, § 16-13-103(1). *43. C.R.S. 1973, § 16-13-102. Silva v. People, 170 Colo. 152, 459 P.2d 285 (1969); Swift, supra, note 16; Coppinger, supra, note 28. 44. But see, People v. Gutierrez, 622 P.2d 547 (Colo. 1981), where ......