Trujillo v. People, 15375.
| Decision Date | 31 January 1944 |
| Docket Number | 15375. |
| Parties | TRUJILLO v. PEOPLE. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied March 13, 1944.
Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; William A Black, Judge.
Bennie Leo Trujillo was convicted of simple robbery, and he brings error.
Affirmed.
F. W. Harding, of Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Gail L Ireland, Atty. Gen., H. Lawrence Hinkley, Deputy Atty. Gen and James S. Henderson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.
Plaintiff in error (20 years of age at the time of the trial) is hereinafter referred to as defendant and the prosecuting witness as Carlson.
Defendant was convicted of simple robbery and sentenced to a term of four to five years in the penitentiary. To review that judgment he prosecutes this writ and asks that it be made a supersedeas. The Attorney General closes his answer brief with the request that we deny the supersedeas 'and forthwith affirm the judgment;' while defendant's counsel closes his reply with the request 'that the judgment of the lower court be reversed.' These statements we construe as a joint request for final judgment on the application, hence elect so to proceed.
Five errors assigned may be thus briefly stated: 1. Denial of permission to properly examine jurors; 2. Erroneous admission of evidence of identification; 3. Insufficient evidence to support the judgment; 4. Denial of defendant's motion for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence.
1. There is no record of the examination of jurors on voir dire and if we were at liberty to accept the naked statement of counsel's brief as to the interrogatory propounded and excluded we would be obliged to approve the ruling because of the confusing indefiniteness of the question.
2. A police officer testified that he exhibited to Carlson approximately two hundred photographs of 'rollers' in the police files, from which he selected and identified that of defendant as one of the men who robbed him. Since 'roller' is a term applied by the police to those who commit robbery in the manner here charged its use in this connection is complained of as highly prejudicial to defendant. But the prosecuting witness was 'rolled' and the officer only designated the general class of the pictures. He made no charge that defendant did the rolling and since no objection was made at the time the assignment is without merit.
3. This assignment calls for a brief statement of the facts.
In the late evening of May 1, 1942, Calson, with crippled hands lame from a recent toe amputation, and somewhat the worse for intoxicating liquor, was 'bumped into' by two 'Spanish-American boys' as he was emerging from the lavatory of a Denver pool hall. An argument ensued during which the two above referred to were joined by two others of the same class. One was definitely identified by Carlson as the defendant. One of the quartet offered to fight Carlson who pleaded his incapacity and by way of compromise bought drinks for the group. About that time he lost consciousness. When he recovered he was being taken from an automobile near Sloan's Lake on the outskirts of Denver. Some men were about him and talked of throwing him into the lake. It was suggested by one of them that that would be murder. Eventually they departed. Carlson again lost consciousness and when he sufficiently recovered to attempt to leave the place he found himself minus shoes, keys, pocketbook and contents, and his watch. His head and face were so badly beaten that the witness who picked him up and took him to a hospital described it as Three stitches had to be taken near his eye, three in his lip and two in his cheek. The defendant pawned Carlson's watch in Denver October 26, 1942, just Before entering the navy. In that service he was taken to San Diego, California, from whence, out on an overnight pass, he returned to Denver without permission and was arrested here February 15, 1943. His defense was an alibi supported by his mother and the girl in whose company he claimed to be. He says he bought defendant's watch from his brother George. The latter (19 years old at the time of the trial) was jointly charged with defendant, entered a plea of guilty, and testified for his brother. He admitted that four men, of whom he was one, took Carlson from the pool hall to Sloan's Lake in an automobile belonging to one of them and there robbed him. He denies that defendant was one of the perpetrators, was ever present, or in any way connected with the crime. Further his story is that after the group left the pool hall they picked up two girls and did some considerable driving and drinking; that at the lake one of the girls, overcome by drink, required attention and while he was at some distance attending to her 'the other guys' rolled Carlson; that the two girls and two of the boys were strangers to him; and that he sold the watch to defendant as the latter claims. The two brothers were taken into...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gallegos v. People
...2 Cir., 6 F.2d 364; People v. Slobodion, supra; State v. Findling, 123 Minn. 413, 144 N.W. 142, 49 L.R.A., N.S., 449; see Trujillo v. People, 112 Colo. 91, 146 P.2d 896; and admissibility is particularly sanctioned in cases where the identifier testifies at the trial, People v. Slobodion, s......
-
Hampton v. People, 19203
...the verdict of the jury should not, indeed cannot, be disturbed. See Eachus v. People, 77 Colo. 445, 236 P. 1009; Trujillo v. People, 112 Colo. 91, 146 P.2d 896; Gonzales v. People, 128 Colo. 522, 264 P.2d 508 and Schreiner v. People, Colo., 360 P.2d In connection with the alleged insuffici......
-
Gallegos v. People
...v. United States, 2 Cir., 6 F.2d 364; People v. Slobodion, Supra; State v. Findling, 123 Minn. 413, 144 N.W. 142; See Trujillo v. People, 112 Colo. 91, 146 P.2d 896; and admissibility is particularly sanctioned in cases where the identifier testifies at the trial, People v. Slobodion, Supra......
-
Schreiner v. People
...verdict.'' This same observation could well be made in the instant case. In support of this general proposition, also see Trujillo v. People, 112 Colo. 91, 146 P.2d 896, where the facts bear a striking resemblance to those of the instant case; Gonzales v. People, 128 Colo. 522, 264 P.2d 508......