Vickers v. People

Citation73 P. 845,31 Colo. 491
PartiesVICKERS v. PEOPLE.
Decision Date05 October 1903
CourtColorado Supreme Court

Error to District Court, Teller County.

James W. Vickers was convicted of an assault with intent to kill and brings error. Reversed.

John R. Smith, for plaintiff in error.

N. C Miller, Atty. Gen., and H. J. Hersey and I. B. Melville Asst. Attys. Gen., for the People

STEELE J.

An information duly verified by Joseph A. Tawney was filed in the district court within and for the county of Teller charging that the defendant on March 21, 1901, did make an assault upon the person of Peter Enzenauer, with the intent then and there to kill and murder. A demurrer upon the ground that the information was not verified by a person having personal knowledge of the facts alleged in the information (the defendant not having had or waived a preliminary examination) was interposed, supported by the affidavit of Tawney. Tawney alleges in his affidavit that he is the person who verified the information, and that he had no personal knowledge of the facts alleged in the information. The demurrer was overruled.

Upon the request of the defendant an order was made by the court excluding the witnesses from the courtroom. Dr. James Green was called as a witness for the defendant. It appearing that the witness was in the courtroom for a period of 15 or 20 minutes while witnesses were testifying, the court refused to permit him to testify. The defendant offered to show that the witness was regularly subpoenaed by the state; that he was informed by the district attorney that he would not be called by the prosecution, and that as soon as it was known that he was in the courtroom the attorneys for the defendant requested him to leave, and that he did then leave, the courtroom. There was no showing made that the witness remained in the courtroom by procurement of the defendant. The offer of proof was that the witness dressed the wounds of the injured man, and that certain contradictory statements were made by him to the witness. The witness Burnside, residing at the town of Divide, was permitted to testify, over the objection of the defendant, concerning the general reputation of the defendant. Upon cross-examination it was shown that the defendant resided at the town of Balfour, 30 miles distant from the residence of the witness, and that the witness based his knowledge of the reputation of the defendant upon statements made to him by persons who claimed they resided at Balfour; that the witness had never been in Balfour, and did not know where the persons with whom he had conversed resided. The jury returned a verdict finding the defendant guilty. The defendant brings the case here for review, alleging numerous errors. We shall consider those assignments only which allege that the court erred in overruling the demurrer, in refusing to permit the witness Green to testify, and in denying the motion to strike the testimony of the witness Burnside.

The demurrer was properly...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • People v. Melendez
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • December 6, 2004
    ...to consider the implications of precluding a defense witness from testifying due to a sequestration violation. See Vickers v. People, 31 Colo. 491, 73 P. 845 (1903). Sanctioning a defense witness for violating a sequestration order implicates important rights of the criminal defendant. See ......
  • People v. Melendez
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • April 24, 2003
    ...one Colorado case in which a defense witness in a criminal case was excluded for violation of a sequestration order. In Vickers v. People, 31 Colo. 491, 73 P. 845 (1903), the supreme court reversed a conviction based on the trial court's refusal to permit testimony by a defense witness who ......
  • Crosby v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. Ry. Co., 5552.
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • December 17, 1928
    ...of the trial court. See State v. Gesell, 124 Mo. 531, 27 S. W. 1101;Murray v. Allerton, 3 Neb. (Unof.) 291, 91 N. W. 518;Vickers v. People, 31 Colo. 491, 73 P. 845;People v. Boscovitch, 20 Cal. 436;Kelly v. Atkins et al., 14 Colo. App. 208, 59 P. 841;State v. King, 9 S. D. 628, 70 N. W. 104......
  • Crosby v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company, a Corp.
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • December 17, 1928
    ... ... Hall v. State, 137 Ala ... 44, 34 So. 680; Martin v. Com. 30 Ky. L. Rep. 1196, ... 100 S.W. 872; [57 N.D. 453] Goon Bow v. People, 160 ... Ill. 438, 43 N.E. 593; Com. v. Crowley, 168 Mass ... 121, 46 N.E. 416; Crawleigh v. Galveston, H. & S.A.R ... Co. 28 Tex. Civ. App ... See State v ... Gesell, 124 Mo. 531, 27 S.W. 1101; Murray v ... Allerton, 3 Neb. (Unof.) 291, 91 N.W. 518; Vickers ... v. People, 31 Colo. 491, 73 P. 845, 12 Am. Crim. Rep ... 631; People v. Boscovitch, 20 Cal. 436; Kelly v ... Atkins, 14 Colo.App. 208, 59 P ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT