Stone v. People
| Decision Date | 10 May 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 21300,21300 |
| Citation | 157 Colo. 178,401 P.2d 837 |
| Parties | William Julian STONE, Plaintiff in Error, v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
George Fischer, Brighton, for plaintiff in error.
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Atty. Gen., James W. Creamer, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for defendant in error.
Is William Julian Stone an innocent victim of circumstances? Or is this rather an instance where the true culprit was apprehended when he elected to return to the scene of his crime, thereby demonstrating the soundness of the adage that a wrongdoer tends to return to the scene of his wrongdoing?
William Julian Stone, hereinafter referred to by name or as the defendant, and his son, Joseph Jerry Stone, along with one Donald Alfred Castro were jointly charged and convicted by a jury of burglary, larceny and conspiracy to commit burglary, as well as conspiracy to commit larceny. The defendant was then sentenced to a term in the State Penitentiary. By writ of error the defendant--though not his son or Castro--seeks reversal of the judgment and sentence.
The dominant issue to be resolved is whether the evidence is legally sufficient to support the verdict of the jury. The defendant urges that it is not. Hence, he says, the trial court committed error in denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal interposed by him at the conclusion of the People's presentation of evidence. Upon trial none of the three defendants offered any evidence. Accordingly, the more precise issue is whether the People's evidence was such as to warrant and require submission of the case to the jury.
The evidence in the instant case is largely circumstantial in nature, there being no witness who could testify that he saw the defendant and his associates forcibly break and enter the store building occupied by the Brighton Appliance Company and steal therefrom three portable television sets of a total value of $526.26. Nor did the defendant or either of his associates ever confess or admit commission of these crimes. In the instant case, then, does the record disclose circumstantial evidence of such quality and quantity as to be sufficient in law to support the verdict of the jury? We hold that it does.
To give meaning to our determination it becomes advisable to outline, at least briefly, those facts and circumstances which in our view do tie the defendant into the burglary of--and larceny from--the Brighton Appliance Company. Two witnesses testified that at about 8 o'clock of a summer's evening they saw three persons in the immediate vicinity of the store building occupied by the Brighton Appliance Company. It was then that the sound of 'breaking glass' was heard by one of these witnesses. These two witnesses testified that minutes later they saw the three persons, whom they had previously noticed at or near the Brighton Appliance Company, running from the general area of the store building proper, and that each of the three was carrying what appeared to be a 'suitcase.' These three with their 'suitcases' ran across some nearby railroad tracks, jumped into an automobile and hurriedly departed the scene. The two witnesses described the getaway automobile as an old model Chevrolet, with a dark color. Neither witness was close enough to identify the three who had thus sped off in the aforementioned Chevrolet.
Upon call, the local police officials went immediately to the store building occupied by the Brighton Appliance Company and their examination of the premises revealed that there had indeed been a forcible breaking and entry of the store building, the glass in the front door having been completely 'broken out.' The proprietor of the store testified that his check of the premises established that three portable television sets were 'missing' and that they had been taken from the store without his permission or consent.
While the police were still at the scene of the burglary and at a time when the two witnesses referred to above, along...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stork v. People
...in this case, the qualification of the witness as an expert in his field meets the tests established in the cases of Stone v. People, 157 Colo. 178, 401 P.2d 837 (1965); Rhodes v. People, 152 Colo. 210, 381 P.2d 30 (1963); and Bridges v. Lintz, 140 Colo. 582, 346 P.2d 571 Assigned error (6)......
-
McCune v. People
...abuse of discretion. White v. People, Colo., 486 P.2d 4 (1971); Scott v. Prople, 166 Colo. 432, 444 P.2d 388 (1968); Stone v. People, 157 Colo. 178, 401 P.2d 837 (1965); Denver v. Lyttle, 106 Colo. 157, 103 P.2d 1 (1940). The record reveals that Shumate was extensively examined on voir dire......
-
Ziatz v. People
...We find no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in permitting the witness to testify as an expert. Stone v. People, 157 Colo. 178, 401 P.2d 837; Bradford v. People, 22 Colo. 157, 43 P. Ziatz complains that the court erred in admitting into evidence Exhibit B which purported to......
-
People v. Estep
...experience in some field of human activity, conferring on him an especial knowledge not shared by men in general." Stone v. People, 157 Colo. 178, 401 P.2d 837 (1965) (emphasis added); see also Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 702. Based upon his knowledge and experience, the witness had a s......
-
Opinion and Expert Testimony Under the Proposed Colorado Rules of Evidence
...Kirkendall v. Neustrom, 379 F.2d 694 (10th Cir., 1967). 12. Pueblo v. Ratliff, 137 Colo. 468, 327 P.2d 270 (1958); Stone v. People, 157 Colo. 178, 401 P.2d 837 (1965); Campbell v. Clark, 383 F.2d 766 (10th Cir., 1960); Bratt v. Western Airlines, 155 F.2d 850 (10th Cir., 1946). 13. Advisory ......
-
Eyewitness Identification -expert Testimony
...conferring on him an especial knowledge not shared by men in general. [Asmus v. People, 47 Colo. 167, 197 P. 209 (1910); Stone v. People, 157 Colo. 178,401 P.2d 837 (1965).] Social or human-experimental psychologists are generally most qualified to deal with the eyewitness phenomenon and ob......