Wharton v. People
Decision Date | 08 May 1939 |
Docket Number | 14511. |
Citation | 90 P.2d 615,104 Colo. 260 |
Parties | WHARTON v. PEOPLE. |
Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Error to District Court, El Paso County; John M. Meikle, Judge.
Norman W. Wharton was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he brings error.
Remanded with directions.
C. H. Babcock and James F. Quine, Jr., both of Colorado Springs, for plaintiff in error.
Byron G. Rogers, Atty. Gen., and Henry E. Lutz, Asst. Atty. Gen for defendant in error.
Plaintiff in error, to whom reference is hereinafter made as defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree and sentenced to death.
The facts briefly stated are, that on the night of June 25, 1938, defendant, armed, entered one of the rooms of a hotel in Colorado Springs for the purpose of robbery and, when caught in the act, shot and killed one Latting, a house detective. He escaped that night, but a few days later was apprehended at Littleton, Colorado, and subsequently tried, with the result above announced.
All the medical experts testified defendant to be legally sane and diagnosed his condition as being one of constitutional psychopathic inferiority, a symptom of which is, that although those afflicted know the difference between right and wrong, they frequently are unable to restrain themselves from doing what they know to be wrong.
Numerous errors are assigned, but for our purposes only one set out in the motion for a new trial will be considered, namely: That the court committed error in refusing to inquire into the alleged improper conduct, threat, coercion and illegal actions of the members of the jury in arriving at a verdict as set forth in an affidavit by Juror Anderson.
Two days after the verdict was returned Anderson voluntarily went to defendant's counsel and executed an affidavit, which, omitting formal and immaterial matters, is as follows:
* * *
* * *
'That on or about the 3rd day of October, 1938, the Monday morning following the entry of said purported verdict that Affiant of his own volition and voluntarily went to the offices of the attorneys for the defendant, and at that time told said attorneys the matters and things set forth in this affidavit, and that the verdict and penalty assessed by the purported jury was not the penalty that Affiant freely and voluntarily assented to; * * *.'
This affidavit was attached to and made a part of the motion for a new trial, and supported several of the grounds of that motion. No counter affidavits were filed by the district attorney, and nothing in the record here refutes the matters set forth in the affidavit. The district attorney objected to the reception and consideration of the affidavit, and although Anderson was present in court ready to testify, the court sustained the objections without inquiry into the facts.
Counsel for the people cite ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Davis
...... This language apparently contemplated a change from many decades of procedure where the jury was the sole sentencer and waiver was not permitted. See Jones v. People, 155 Colo. 148, 393 P.2d 366 (1964); Gallegos v. People, 116 Colo. 129, 179 P.2d 272 (1947); Wharton v. People, 104 Colo. 260, 90 P.2d 615 (1939); Fleagle v. People, 87 Colo. 532, 289 P. 1078 (1930); Demato v. People, 49 Colo. 147, 111 P. 703 (1910). Thus, Colorado's practice of requiring the jury to determine the appropriate sentence in a capital case is longstanding and is not to be lightly ......
-
People v. Keenan
...... (Wharton v. People (1939) ......
-
Welch v. People
...in the absence thereof all presumptions are that he did so.' 'The law, as announced by the Court, makes the rule set forth in Wharton v. People, 104 Colo. 260 , no effect, if the juryman states that his verdict was not influenced by those extraneous matters, and it means that, regardless of......
-
State v. Narten, 1381
...not the province of an appellate court to pass upon questions not acted upon by the court from which the appeal is taken. Wharton v. People, 104 Colo. 260, 90 P.2d 615; Matlow v. Matlow, 89 Ariz. 293, 361 P.2d Counsel argues that the Ashton principle applies to police officers called by def......