Stewart v. People
| Decision Date | 13 March 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 21295,21295 |
| Citation | 426 P.2d 545,162 Colo. 117 |
| Parties | Fred E. STEWART and Lorin J. Ponton, Plaintiffs in Error, v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Samuel J. Merlo, Cortez, for plaintiffs in error.
Al Haas, Dist. Atty., Sixth Judicial Dist., Durango, Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Atty. Gen., George E. DeRoos, John P. Moore, Asst. Attys. Gen., Denver, for defendant in error.
Plaintiffs in error, Fred E. Stewart and Lorin J. Ponton, were convicted of burglary, and conspiracy to commit burglary of a building in Durango, Colorado. Stewart was sentenced to concurrent terms of from eight to ten years in the state penitentiary on each of the two counts. Ponton received concurrent terms of from six to ten years in the penitentiary on each of the two counts. From these judgments, Stewart and Ponton bring writ of error here.
Stewart and Ponton were arrested late in the evening of January 21, 1964 inside the office building which they were charged with burglarizing. Various desks, safes and cabinets in the building had been forced open. After their arrest, the defendants were taken into one of the offices in the building and were searched. Certain items of stolen property were found upon them at that time, and they were handcuffed and taken to the police station.
At the police station they were searched more thoroughly and then placed in jail. During the search at the jail, an automobile key was taken from Stewart and later that night the key was used to open the door of an automobile which the police found parked several blocks from the scene of the arrest. The car was driven to the police station and impounded. Later that night the police found a key for the trunk of the car in a box hidden under the hood of the car and they searched the car and the trunk.
Articles taken from the persons of the defendants at the time of the arrest and at the police station were later admitted into evidence. There were also admitted into evidence articles taken from the automobile. These latter articles consisted of tools and clothing which were similar to the tools and items of property found in the Emigh Building and were offered to connect the automobile and the defendants with the burglary. At no time did the police obtain a warrant to search the automobile. The defendants moved to suppress the evidence obtained by the search of the automobile and this motion was denied. The motion was renewed during the trial and was again denied.
The two substantial grounds of error urged by the defendants deal with their contentions that (1) the motion to suppress the evidence taken from the automobile should have been granted, and (2) that the court used erroneous language when it cautioned the jury at the time of admitting evidence of other acts or transactions.
Stewart and Ponton contend that the fact situation here brings the case squarely within the ambit of Preston v. United States, 376 U.S. 364, 84 S.Ct. 881, 11 L.Ed.2d 777 (1964). While it is true that Preston, under the specific language contained therein, might dictate reversal in this case, the United States Supreme Court in Cooper v. State of California, 386 U.S. 58, 87 S.Ct. 788, 17 L.Ed.2d 730 (decided February 20, 1967) has now elaborated on the meaning of that decision. If, in fact, Cooper does not overrule...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kleinbart v. State
...Compare with People v. Manzi, 38 Misc.2d 114, 237 N.Y.S.2d 738 (1963), aff'd 21 A.D.2d 57, 248 N.Y.S.2d 306 (1964), and Stewart v. People, Colo., 426 P.2d 545 (1967). (b) Standing to Prior to the decisions of the United States Supreme Court in Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 80 S.Ct. ......
-
State v. McCoy
...135 (5th Cir. 1956); People v. Webb, supra; People v. Robinson, 62 Cal.2d 889, 44 Cal.Rptr. 762, 402 P.2d 834 (1965); Stewart v. People, Colo., 426 P.2d 545 (1967); State v. Wood, 197 Kan. 241, 416 P.2d 729 (1966); State v. McCreary, supra; State v. Houchin, Mont., 428 P.2d 971 (1967).1 Thi......
-
State v. Hutton, 5537
...trial. Cooper v. State of California, 386 U.S. 58, 87 S.Ct. 788, 17 L.Ed.2d 730; State v. Rowan, 246 La. 38, 163 So.2d 87; Stewart v. People, 426 P.2d 545 (Colo.1967); People v. Lozano, Cal.App., 58 Cal.Rptr. 102; State v. Boykins, 50 N.J. 73, 232 A.2d 141, 143-146 (1967); St. Clair v. Stat......
-
St. Clair v. State
...the meaning of the constitution. See, for example, State v. Wilson, 424 P.2d 650 (Wash.1967); People v. Webb, supra; Stewart v. People, 426 P.2d 545 (Colo.1967); Draper v. State of Maryland, 265 F.Supp. 718 (D.C.1967); State v. Darabcsek, 412 S.W.2d 97 (Mo.1967); Boyden v. United States, 36......