Title: People v. Martinez

State: colorado

Issuer: Colorado Supreme Court

Document:

506 P.2d 744 (1973) The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bennie Thomas MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant. No. 25199. Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc. February 26, 1973. *745 Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., John P. Moore, Deputy Atty. Gen., Aurel M. Kelly, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee. Rollie R. Rogers, Colo. State Public Defender, J. D. MacFarlane, Chief Deputy State Public Defender, Thomas M. Van Cleave, III, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, for defendant-appellant. HODGES, Justice. Defendant Martinez was found guilty by a jury of unlawful possession of heroin. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in refusing him permission to testify in surrebuttal. We disagree and therefore affirm the conviction. The defendant, who testified in his own defense, was specifically asked on both direct and cross-examination whether he had ever used narcotics including heroin. He denied that he ever used any narcotics. He also replied in the negative when asked whether he recalled making any contrary statements to a Mr. Adkisson, his classification officer at the Colorado State Penitentiary. After the defense rested, Mr. Adkisson, as a rebuttal witness, produced a statement signed by the defendant to the effect that the defendant had, in fact, used narcotics. The defendant then sought permission to retake the stand to offer his explanation of the conflict between his testimony and the evidence furnished by prosecution witness Adkisson. The trial court denied the request in the following statement: As a general rule, defendants should always be permitted to introduce as surrebuttal, evidence which tends to meet new matter introduced by the prosecution on rebuttal. Otherwise, it is within the discretion of the trial court to allow or deny surrebuttal. Gray v. Sharp, 17 Colo.App. 139, 67 P. 351 (1902). See also, 53 Am.Jur. Trial § 122 and 88 C.J.S. Trial § 103 for cases from other jurisdictions in accord with the foregoing rule concerning surrebuttal by a defendant in criminal cases. Since the defendant sought to discuss on surrebuttal matters that were not a reply to new evidence of the prosecution and had been specifically covered in earlier testimony, the trial court did not commit an abuse of discretion in denying the defendant's request. Judgment affirmed.