White v. People, 23543
| Decision Date | 14 June 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 23543,23543 |
| Citation | 175 Colo. 119,486 P.2d 4 |
| Parties | James B. WHITE, Plaintiff in Error, v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Edward H. Sherman, Truman E. Coles, Public Defenders, Stephen C. Rench, Asst. Public Defender, Isaac Mellman, Sp. Asst. to Public Defender, in and for City & County of Denver, Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., John P. Moore, Deputy Atty. Gen., Michael T. Haley, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for defendant in error.
Defendant James B. White brings this writ of error to review his conviction for possession of narcotic drugs. Upon completion of the People's evidence, defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal was denied. Defendant presented no evidence and the jury returned a guilty verdict.
The defendant urges reversal of the judgment of conviction on the basis of the following alleged errors:
1. Defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence was erroneously denied. This assertion of error relates to a claimed deficiency in the chain of evidence of an exhibit, a marijuana cigarette.
2. The trial court should not have allowed police officer Hoaglin to testify as an expert in marijuana analysis, since he was not properly qualified as an expert.
3. The trial court erred in giving Instruction No. 12 relating to the defendant's election not to testify.
In our view, reversible error is not involved in any of the above specified contentions of the defendant. We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Defendant was stopped by police officers Lambert and Brown because he fit the description of a wanted man listed in a Denver police bulletin. Defendant was asked for his identification. He reached for his wallet, and at this time the officers noted that a small white object fell from his hand. Without losing sight of the object, the officers retrieved it, visually examined it and arrested defendant for possession of marijuana. The officers testified that from their experience they determined that the white object was a marijuana cigarette.
The cigarette was marked with the date and initialed by officer Lambert, who then placed the cigarette in a white envelope (Exhibit E) and this white envelope in turn was placed in a yellow manilla envelope (Exhibit A). The yellow manilla envelope was sealed and placed in an evidence container having a hasp sealed by a metal strip. This metal strip (Exhibit C), (impressed with the number 3500), was initialed and dated by officer Lambert.
Officer Charles D. Hoaglin, of the Denver Police Department's Crime Laboratory, testified at trial that he broke the seal on the evidence container and removed the evidence. We note here that the seal (Exhibit C), a part of the record before us, is scratched with the impression 'CDH 4--20--67' and is marked '3500.' Officer Hoaglin then removed the cigarette from the envelope (Exhibit E), and, after removing a portion of it for analysis (Exhibit D), he initialed the cigarette and placed it back into the envelope (Exhibit E). He then sealed the envelope and initialed the seal. His analysis of the cigarette portion (Exhibit D) established that it was marijuana.
At trial, the seal on Exhibit A was broken, the white envelope, Exhibit E, was removed, its seal was broken and the cigarette was offered and admitted into evidence. Also admitted into evidence were the yellow envelope (Exhibit A), the cigarette portion analyzed (Exhibit D), and the evidence box seal with the imprint '3500.' (Exhibit C).
Defendant contends that the chain of evidence linking him with the analyzed marijuana cigarette was defective because the testimony does not clearly define what seals were broken and what envelopes were involved. We agree that the testimony in this respect is somewhat confusing, and that the district attorney should have exercised more care in his questioning in order to clearly identify the seals being broken at trial and the envelopes involved. However, our study of this testimony and the examination of the various exhibits involved makes it obvious to us that the same item that fell from the defendant's hand when he was stopped by the police, was the item which was analyzed by officer Hoaglin. Furthermore, the evidence relating to the dating and initialing of the evidence and the sealing of envelopes and evidence containers, makes it convincingly clear, that between the receipt of this evidence and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Roark
...we have consistently held that even in those circumstances the giving of the instruction is not prejudicial error. White v. People, 175 Colo. 119, 486 P.2d 4 (1971); McLean v. People, 172 Colo. 338, 473 P.2d 715 (1970); Kimmel v. People, 172 Colo. 333, 473 P.2d 167 The record does not inclu......
-
Sergent v. People
...the United States Department of Justice for examination. We find the chain of evidence to be intact in every instance. See White v. People, Colo., 486 P.2d 4 (1971). Suffice it to say that we have reviewed all of the other evidentiary claims which the defendant has raised and have found the......
-
Huntoon v. TCI Cablevision of Colorado, Inc.
...accreditation, or membership in a professional organization, in order to testify on a particular issue. See White v. People, 175 Colo. 119, 122, 486 P.2d 4, 6 (1971) (witness not disqualified by lack of college degree); 8 Klein v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 948 P.2d 43, 49-50 (Colo.App......
-
People v. Rodriguez
...was unknown, was the same powder that Rodriguez had possessed before discarding it during the traffic stop. Cf. White v. People , 175 Colo. 119, 122, 486 P.2d 4, 5-6 (1971) (prosecution established a sufficient chain of custody because it demonstrated that "the same item that fell from the ......
-
Amending Indictments in Colorado: Rule 6.8, Colo. R. Crim. P
...should be important when amending an information while subject matter is not. 63. 175 Colo. 130, 486 P.2d 1 (1971). 64. Id. at 135, 486 P.2d at 4 (Emphasis added.); cf. Farnum v. United States, 1 Colo. 309 (1871). 65. McKee v. People, 175 Colo. 410, 487 P.2d 1332 (1971). 66. Albritton v. Pe......
-
The Use of Demonstrative Evidence in Criminal Cases
...where there has been the initialing and dating of the evidence and the sealing of envelopes and evidence containers, see White v. People, 175 Colo. 119, 486 P.2d 4 (1971) and People v. Atencio, supra, note 7. 11. Claxton v. People, 164 Colo. 283, 434 P.2d 407 (1967). 12. People v. Brake, __......
-
May 2008 - Crossing the Separation of Powers Threshold: Legislative and Regulatory Control of Expert Testimony
...1098 (Colo. 1973); McCune v. People, 499 P.2d 1184, 1187 (Colo. 1972); People v. Hankin, 498 P.2d 1116, 1118 (Colo. 1972); White v. People, 486 P.2d 4, 6 (Colo. 1971); Brewer v. & Foreign Ins. Co., 837 P.2d 236, 239 (Colo.App. 1992); People v. Tidwell, 706 P.2d 438, 439 (Colo.App. 1985); St......
-
Challenging the Unreliable Damages Expert-part I
...of the five factors specified in the rule. (Citations omitted.)). 41. Huntoon, supra, note 40 at 690. 42. Id.; see also White v. People, 486 P.2d 4, 6 (Colo. (witness not disqualified because lacking college degree); Klein v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 948 P.2d 43, 49-50 (Colo.App. 199......