Williams v. People, 18142
| Decision Date | 03 September 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 18142,18142 |
| Citation | 136 Colo. 164,315 P.2d 189 |
| Parties | Jerry WILLIAMS, Plaintiff in Error, v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
A. E. Small, Jr., Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Atty. Gen., John W. Patterson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.
This court has promulgated rules applicable in criminal cases. Counsel for plaintiff in error, in disregard of said rules, has filed what is labeled an abstract of the record, and is similar, in nearly all respects, to the abstract filed by same counsel in a previous case, McConnell v. People, 132 Colo. 295, 287 P.2d 659, in which counsel had timely admonition concerning the abstract. As suggested there, we would be justified in declining to consider the points urged for reversal; however, since the other points involved so clearly demonstrate counsel's obliviousness to many decisions of this court, we feel constrained to comment thereon.
The so-called abstract of record herein recites the charge and defendant's plea of not guilty; the verdict of the jury and the sentence imposed thereon; and three assignments of error. Such cannot be dignified by the title 'Abstract of Record,' as is so clearly pointed out in McConnell v. People, supra.
The assignments of error, entirely without merit, are:
1. The trial court erred in failing to grant defendant's motion for a directed verdict at the close of the People's case.
2. Failure to grant defendant's motion for a directed verdict at the conclusion of all the evidence.
3. Error in failing to grant defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of an unreasonable and illegal entry and illegal search.
At the close of the people's case, defendant moved for a directed verdict. Upon denial of this motion, defendant neglected to stand on said motion and waived the error, if any, by introducing evidence for the defense, which action resulted in leaving but one question, and that is, whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction. This requires a brief statement of the facts involved.
This is a flagrant case of a violation of the 'narcotics act.' This defendant and his confederate, the other codefendant, were caught red-handed in the possession and intended traffic of heroin. A most despicable activity. All that an unlawful dealer in narcotics needs is a semisecluded location, a list of addicts and the soul of an ostracized rat. The codefendants, Jerry Williams and Bobbie Lou Dedman, were jointly charged in separate counts with possession of heroin and conspiracy to commit the offense of possession thereof. Pleas of not guilty were entered and the trial to a jury resulted in verdicts of guilty on both counts on September 6, 1956. Motion for new trial was filed and denied, as well as application for probation, and Williams was sentenced to the state penitentiary for a term of not less than eighteen months nor more than five years. Since no review is sought by codefendant Dedman, it is immaterial for our present purposes to discuss the disposition of her case by the trial court.
Summary of the facts disclose that on the 26th day of January, 1956, the Bureau of Narcotics in San Francisco informed the Denver office by teletype that Barbara Williams left San Francisco for Denver by plane; that at the airport she picked up six ounces of heroin; that she would stay in Denver with Jerry Williams, 2221 Humboldt street, and would there be joined by one Tom Hicks, said to be implicated in narcotic traffic; and that they expected to establish outlets for the heroin...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Elkins v. United States
...COLORADO Pre-Weeks: no holding. Pre-Wolf: Massantonio v. People, 77 Colo. 392, 236 P. 1019 (admissible). Post-Wolf: Williams v. People, 136 Colo. 164,315 P.2d 189 (admissible). CONNECTICUT Pre-Weeks: State v. Griswold, 67 Conn. 290, 34 A. 1046, 33 L.R.A. 227 (admissible). Pre-Wolf: State v.......
-
People v. McKnight
...of constitutional search provisions until ordered to apply the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule in Mapp , see Williams v. People , 136 Colo. 164, 315 P.2d 189, 191 (1957).¶75 This court first rejected exclusion as a remedy for a violation of article II, section 7 in Massantonio , 236 P. a......
-
State v. Winters
...v. Melendez, Cal.App., 37 Cal.Rptr. 126, 128-129 (1964).6 State v. Hunt, 91 Ariz. 149, 370 P.2d 642, 645 (1962).7 Williams v. People, 136 Colo. 164, 315 P.2d 189, 191 (1957).8 People v. Walker, 121 Cal.App.2d 173, 262 P.2d 640, 641 (1953).9 58-13a-1(12) and (15).10 People v. Mickens, 148 Co......
-
Capps v. People
...Fourth Amendment protection which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Smuk v. People, 72 Colo. 97, 209 P. 636; Williams v. People, 136 Colo. 164, 315 P.2d 189; People v. Harris, 34 Ill.2d 282, 215 N.E.2d 214, cert. denied, 384 U.S. 993, 86 S.Ct. 1900, 16 L.Ed.2d 1009 It is well-se......