Young v. People, 24653
Decision Date | 24 October 1972 |
Docket Number | No. 24653,24653 |
Citation | 180 Colo. 62,502 P.2d 81 |
Parties | Jerry YOUNG, a/k/a Joe Lee West, a/k/a Al Green, Plaintiff in Error, v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Defendant in Error. |
Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Rollie R. Rogers, Colorado State Public Defender, Hubert T. Morrow, II, Deputy State Public Defender, Truman E. Coles, Asst. State Public Defender, Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., John P. Moore, Deputy Atty. Gen., E. Ronald Beeks, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for defendant in error.
This is a companion case to Constantine v. People, Colo., 495 P.2d 208. Young and Constantine were charged and tried jointly with unnatural carnal copulation and conspiracy to commit the same. A third individual was charged with the same offenses, but he was not tried. He testified for the People. The cases of the two defendants were severed for purposes of appeal. We discern no error and therefore affirm.
The issues on appeal here have commonality with only one of the issues in Constantine--the validity of the in-court identification of the defendant by the victim. What was said in Constantine applies here and there is no need to review either the arguments, or the disposition by this court.
The defendant contends that Instruction 16, given by the court, relating to conspiracy, is deficient in that it failed to set forth the essentiality of 'the agreement' as an element. Instruction 16, together with Instructions 15 and 17, all relating to conspiracy, are set forth:
'If any two or more persons shall conspire or agree . . . or shall agree, conspire or cooperate to do, or to aid in doing any other unlawful act, each of the persons so offending shall on conviction, in case of conspiracy to commit a felony . . . be punished as provided by law.'
The elements of a conspiracy are (1) an agreement (2) between two or more persons (3) to commit a crime. Goddard v. People, 172 Colo. 498, 474 P.2d 210 (1970); Marshall v. People, 160 Colo. 323, 417 P.2d 491 (1966). The essential elements are all present in Instruction 15.
The defendant tendered an instruction (No. 8) on conspiracy which the court refused to give. This ruling is also assigned as error. Inasmuch as the given instructions contained the essential elements of conspiracy, the defendant was not prejudiced by the court's refusal to give the tendered one. Winters v. People, Colo., 482 P.2d 385 (1971).
The defendant also contends that...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Rodriguez
...cites no authority holding that such an instruction must be given at the sentencing phase of a capital trial. See Young v. People, 180 Colo. 62, 64, 502 P.2d 81, 82-83 (1972) (defendant cited no authority in support of contention that he was entitled to anti-sympathy instruction to offset p......
-
Rodriguez v. Zavaras
...such as this is generally held to be within the discretion of the trial court. See Rodriguez IV, 794 P.2d at 987; Young v. People, 180 Colo. 62, 502 P.2d 81, 82-83 (1972). Petitioner has failed to show any prejudice that arose as a result of the failure to give this Finally, in regard to th......
-
People v. Rodriguez
...(2) between two or more persons (3) to commit or attempt to commit a crime. § 18-2-201(1), 8 C.R.S. (1978); Young v. People, 180 Colo. 62, 64, 502 P.2d 81, 82 (1972). The essential elements are all present in Instruction No. Instruction No. 20 need not repeat the elements of first-degree mu......
-
People v. O'Neill
...Abeyta v. People, 156 Colo. 440, 400 P.2d 431 (1965).' Goddard v. People, 172 Colo. 498, 474 P.2d 210 (1970). See Young v. People, Colo., 502 P.2d 81 (1972). The circumstantial evidence introduced in this case, when taken as a whole and viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution,......