Vigil v. People
| Decision Date | 13 August 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 17737,17737 |
| Citation | 134 Colo. 126,300 P.2d 545 |
| Parties | Gilbert Roland VIGIL, Plaintiff in Error, v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Angelo F. Mosco, Walsenburg, for plaintiff in error.
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.
Gilbert Roland Vigil and one Lopez were tried jointly and convicted of armed robbery. Vigil was sentenced to a term in the reformatory at Buena Vista, and Lopez sentenced to a term in the penitentiary. Vigil is here by writ of error seeking a reversal of the judgment.
The evidence discloses that on the night of February 11, 1954, three men armed with revolvers entered the liquor store of one Jackie George in Walsenburg, Colorado, and by threats and assaults with their revolvers against her and her son, forced her to permit them to take the moneys in the cash register and in her purse. Two of the men who staged the hold-up wore white cloths over their faces, concealing all but the eyes and forehead. One of the trio was not apprehended. Jackie George and her thirteen year old son identified Vigil and his co-defendant as the two men who held guns and threatened them, the identification having been first made in a police 'line-up' in Denver and later from pictures of the two men and in the courtroom at the time of the trial.
The defendants introduced evidence of an alibi, contending that on the 11th of February, 1954, they were in Denver, Colorado.
Defendant's counsel assigns the following as errors committed by the trial court: 1. Refusal to grant a motion for a directed verdict based, as we understand it, upon his assertion that the People's evidence was circumstantial and did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants were guilty; 2. error in permitting masks to be placed over the faces of the defendants during the trial of the cause; 3. permitting a night club operator to testify as to a robbery occurring in his night club by three men, one of whom was this defendant's co-defendant, this robbery having occurred shortly after the robbery for which defendant was found guilty.
These assignments will be treated in the order mentioned.
1. Jackie George and her son positively identified defendant and his co-defendant as men who participated in the armed robbery of her liquor store. Their identification was based upon the physical appearance of defendant, particularly with reference to his eyes and forehead; nevertheless it is urged by defendant's counsel that this is circumstantial evidence. In this counsel is mistaken. The evidence was direct evidence, and the credibility of the witnesses and their means and opportunities for observation and their positive identification was for the consideration of the jury. No error was committed in denying a motion for directed verdict.
2. The record discloses that during the course of the trial the following occurred:
'Mr. Murr: Now, at this time, your Honor, I would like to have permission to place a mask on their faces, under her direction, so that she can positively identify them in the same manner they were that night.
'The Court: Well, is there any objection to that?
'The Court: Well, we will let it be done, you may save your exception.
'Mr. Murr: I have here a white handkerchief, Mrs. George, if you will step down and stand here and tell me what position----
'Mr. Murr: We would like the defendant to stand up.
'Mr. Mosco: We object to his standing up, as being improper.
'The Court: Overruled.
'Mr. Mosko: Save our exceptions.
'The Court: Yes, you may have your exceptions.
'The Court: You may sit down now, Mr. Defendant.
'The Witness: Yes, I identify him by his eyes and hair, he didn't stand straight.
'Mr. Mosco: Same objections.
'The Court: Same ruling.
'Mr. Mosco: Save our exceptions.
(Italics ours)
It is a general rule of law that unless the reasons for an objection are obvious the grounds therefor must be stated with sufficient particularity as to call the attention of the court to the specific point, and likewise it is a general rule that only such grounds of objection as are specified will be considered. 3 Am.Jur., sec. 263, p. 41; 4 C.J.S., Appeal and Error, § 247, p. 498. The object and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Bock, 8535
...252, 260 P.2d 8; People v. Caritativo, 46 Cal.2d 68, 292 P.2d 513; People v. Smith, 142 Cal.App.2d 287, 298 P.2d 540; Vigil v. People, 134 Colo. 126, 300 P.2d 545; Barnhart v. State, Okl.Cr., 302 P.2d 793; Alexander v. State, Okl.Cr., 305 P.2d 572; People v. Duroncelay, 48 Cal.2d 766, 312 P......
-
Cox v. People
...the Colorado constitutional privilege against self-incrimination provides broader protection, 4 relying on language in Vigil v. People, 134 Colo. 126, 300 P.2d 545 (1956) (defendant argued that he should not have been required to wear a mask at robbery trial in order for witnesses to identi......
-
Alexander v. State
...Cram case are State v. Alexander, 1951, 7 N.J. 585, 83 A.2d 441, and State v. Smith, 8 Terry 334, 47 Del. 334, 91 A.2d 188; Vigil v. People, Colo., 300 P.2d 545; Twining v. State of New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 29 S.Ct. 14, 53 L.Ed. 97; Block v. People, 1951, 125 Colo. 36, 240 P.2d 512; Allen v......
-
Bivins v. State
...United States v. Satterfield, (9th Cir. 1978) 572 F.2d 687; United States v. Turner (4th Cir. 1973) 472 F.2d 958; Vigil v. People, (1956) 134 Colo. 126, 300 P.2d 545; Morris v. State, (Fla.App.1966) 184 So.2d 199; State v. Williams, (1976) 307 Minn. 191, 239 N.W.2d 222; State v. Dean, (Mo.1......