Stewart v. People, 24098
| Decision Date | 06 July 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 24098,24098 |
| Citation | 487 P.2d 371,175 Colo. 304 |
| Parties | Richard STEWART, Plaintiff in Error, v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
William J. Chisholm, Public Defender, City and County of Denver, Edward H. Sherman, Public Defender, City and County of Denver, Isaac Mellman, Sp. Asst. to Public Defender, Thomas M. Van Cleave III, Asst. Public Defender, for plaintiff in error.
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., John P. Moore, Deputy Atty. Gen., E. Ronald Beeks, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.
The plaintiff in error, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was convicted of aggravated robbery and sentenced to the state penitentiary. He seeks reversal on writ of error, alleging that the facts and circumstances surrounding the People's pre-trial and trial identification of defendant were so suggestive as to constitute a denial of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment and in derogation of his rights to counsel under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. We find that the identifications met all constitutional tests and therefore affirm.
The record discloses that the defendant waived his rights to a jury trial and the case was tried to the court. Prior to trial, the court conducted a hearing concerning the line-up procedure and ruled that it was not conducted within the guidelines set down by United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967). This ruling was based on the fact that counsel for defendant, the Public Defender, was not allowed to be present during police post line-up interrogation of the eyewitness, Ronald J. McBride. The court concluded that this was a critical stage of the line-up procedure, and therefore he would disregard the line-up identification in rendering his decision.
The matter then proceeded to trial. The entire evidence of the People was the testimony of the only eyewitness, Ronald J. McBride. The defendant did not take the stand and offered in defense three alibi witnesses to the effect that he was with friends in downtown Denver at the time the robbery was committed.
The record discloses that the identification of the defendant by the witness, McBride, was in four stages: (1) Physical description given to police following the robbery; (2) Immediately after the robbery picking out a mug shot at the police station; (3) Line-up identification; and (4) In-court identification.
Essentially, the defendant's argument is that the in-court identification was tainted by the line-up identification since they cannot be separated and one influences the other; particularly where, as here, the police officer advised the eyewitness McBride that the person he identified in the mug shot would appear in the line-up.
The People respond first that if there was any taint created by the line-up, it was cured by the procedure which subsequently followed; and further, that there was no error since the eyewitness' identification was of independent origin and therefore its weight was properly considered by the court. We agree with this contention.
Assuming, Arguendo, that the trial court's reading of United States v. Wade, Supra--requiring presence of defendant's counsel at the line-up also necessitates his presence during any post police line-up interrogation of the witness--is a correct interpretation, the fact remains that the trial court in this instance disregarded the line-up identification in reaching its decision.
In accordance with the holding in Wade, the People can purge any improper line-up identification of any 'primary taint,' by showing that there was other evidence in the record which would satisfy...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Huguley
...that any suggestion was not present and that the identification was the product of the victim's own recollection. Stewart v. People, 175 Colo. 304, 487 P.2d 371; Martinez v. People, 174 Colo. 125, 482 P.2d 375." (emphasis Under Sandoval, identification testimony is admitted and the issue of......
-
Sandoval v. People, 24826
...evidence that any suggestion was not present and that the identification was the product of the victim's own recollection. Stewart v. People, Colo., 487 P.2d 371; Martinez v. People, 174 Colo. 125, 482 P.2d 375.' Constantine v. People, Colo., 495 P.2d 208 (1972). At an In camera hearing, th......
-
Glass v. People, 24237
...apart from the illegal confrontation. People v. Bowen, Colo., 490 P.2d 295; Edmisten v. People, Colo., 490 P.2d 58; Stewart v. People, Colo., 487 P.2d 371; Schott v. People, Colo., 482 P.2d 101; Neighbors v. People, 171 Colo. 349, 467 P.2d Although it was procedurally improper for the court......
-
People v. Simms, 25375
...separate evidentiary hearing is at most harmless error. See Glass v. People, 177 Colo. 267, 493 P.2d 1347 (1972) and Stewart v. People, 175 Colo. 304, 487 P.2d 371 (1971). III. Also, as to Case No. 1, the defendant asserts that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of his involvement ......
-
Section 16 CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS - RIGHTS OF DEFENDANT.
...disregarded the line-up identification in rendering its decision, defendant was not deprived of his right to counsel. Stewart v. People, 175 Colo. 304, 487 P.2d 371 (1971). Where the defendant asserts that the identification which occurred at the line-up was tainted because he had not been ......
-
Section 25 DUE PROCESS OF LAW.
...was other evidence in the record which would satisfy the independent origin test and the requirements of due process. Stewart v. People, 175 Colo. 304, 487 P.2d 371 (1971). State must establish independence by clear and convincing proof. Courtroom identification is not admissible at all unl......