Tomeo v. People
| Decision Date | 19 July 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 20965,20965 |
| Citation | 158 Colo. 26,404 P.2d 287 |
| Parties | Michael A. TOMEO and Colleen Tomeo, Plaintiffs in Error, v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Robert T. Kingsley, Albert B. Wolf, Denver, for plaintiffs in error.
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Atty. Gen., John E. Bush, John P. Moore, Asst. Attys, Gen. of Colo., Denver, for defendant in error.
By writ of error Michael and Colleen Tomeo, husband and wife, seek reversal of an order of the trial court adjudging each to be in contempt of court and sentencing them to the county jail for a period of four months.
Pursuant to subpoena, both Michael and Colleen Tomeo appeared before a grand jury then sitting in Jefferson County. In each instance the witness in response to questions propounded by the District Attorney gave his or her name, and then refused to answer all other questions of the District Attorney, including even the question as to their place of residence. The transcript of the proceedings before the grand jury clearly indicates an unwillingness on the part of each witness to answer any and all questions of the District Attorney.
This refusal on the part of the Tomeos to answer questions before the grand jury was thereafter brought to the attention of the trial court. Upon hearing, the trial court inquired of each witness whether 'if you were directed to answer those questions now before the grand jury, woudl your answer be the same'? Our review of the record fails to disclose that either of the Tomeos made a response to this inquiry of the court, although there was considerable colloquy between the court and counsel for the Tomeos. It may be that if one reads between the lines it might possibly be assumed that the Tomeos somehow answered the inquiry of the court in the affirmative. However, on review by writ of error we are bound by the record as we find it and are not at liberty to add to it by reading between the lines. Accordingly, neither of the Tomeos nor their counsel having made any pronouncement in the presence of the court that the Tomeos would refuse to answer any and all questions which might be asked by the District Attorney before the grand jury, the instant case is therefore not governed by the blanket refusal rule enunciated in Enrichi v. United States, 9 Cir., 212 F.2d 702.
In like vein, our review of the record fails to disclose any refusal by either of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pieramico v. People
...to act on the allegation. It is only when error is in some way preserved on the record that this court can take action. Tomeo v. People, 158 Colo. 26, 404 P.2d 287. VII. After the trial was completed and the verdict had been entered, defendant filed a motion for a new trial based on newly d......
-
Vaughn v. People
...insane people are not responsible. We do not find such a statement in the record. Under such circumstances, the case of Tomeo v. People, 58 Colo. 26, 404 P.2d 287, is dispositive. In Tomeo, we 'It may be that if one reads between the lines it might possibly be assumed that the Tomeos someho......