Title: Hopper v. People

State: colorado

Issuer: Colorado Supreme Court

Document:

382 P.2d 540 (1963) Charles Ray HOPPER, alias Charles Ray Baker, Plaintiff in Error, v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Defendant in Error. No. 20279. Supreme Court of Colorado. In Department. June 3, 1963. Rehearing Denied June 24, 1963. *541 Richard H. Duke, Denver, for plaintiff in error. Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Atty. Gen., John E. Bush, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for defendant in error. MOORE, Justice. Plaintiff in error to whom we will refer as defendant, was found guilty of the crime of aggravated robbery. The trial court entered judgment on the verdict and imposed a sentence of from eight to fifteen years imprisonment in the state penitentiary. As grounds for reversal counsel for defendant presents his argument under three captions as follows: On May 2, 1961, at about 8:00 P.M., Harry Feldman, owner of Mike's Liquor Store located on the north side of Colfax avenue immediately west of Wadsworth in Lakewood, Colorado, was robbed of $177.00 by an armed bandit. His assistant who had not seen the criminal notified the sheriff's office of the robbery. Upon the broadcast of the robbery an officer stationed near the scene recalled that at a time shortly before he had seen an off-red and black Mercury with one male occupant leave the White Spot Drive-in parking lot close to Mike's Liquor store, proceed south on Yarrow street toward Colfax, then back up and go north on Yarrow. He described it as a two-door. This information was broadcast by police officials to patrol cars on duty. After the broadcast another officer noted defendant's car proceeding west on 20th avenue to Wadsworth and then north on Wadsworth. The car, with a single occupant, was a two-tone red and black 1953 Mercury four-door. The defendant was stopped and questioned. A search of the trunk of the car disclosed a .38 calibre revolver and a subsequent search of defendant's person disclosed a roll of bills later found to amount to $161.00. Defendant was then taken to Mike's Liquor Store and was identified as the bandit. At the commencement of the testimony of Mr. Feldman the following took place: The foregoing testimony forms the basis of the first claim of error. While it was not mentioned again at any point during the trial, the motion for mistrial was renewed at the close of the evidence, at which time the district attorney commented as follows: The response made by the witness was unsolicited by any question asked of him, and the trial court promptly ordered the statement stricken and instructed the jury to disregard it, notwithstanding the incident to which the witness referred might well have been proper for consideration in establishing the identity of the defendant. In Leick v. People, 136 Colo. 535, 322 P.2d 674, with reference to a somewhat similar situation we stated, inter alia: From State v. Sinovich, 329 Mo. 909, 46 S.W.2d 877, we quote the following: In the instant case we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for mistrial. With reference to the second point on which counsel for defendant presents an argument, there was evidence from the officer conducting the search of the car that defendant had no objection and in fact consented that the search be made. As stated in Williams v. People, 136 Colo. 164, 315 P. 2d 189: At the conclusion of the direct examination of the police officers, counsel for defendant addressed the court as follows: To a question from the court as to whether any such statements existed the prosecuting attorney replied as follows: Another request by counsel for defendant was: Rule 16(b) Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure provides in part: We are at a loss to understand how it can be urged that the trial court erred in refusing to require the district attorney to produce a statement or document not in existence. Counsel for defendant asked that the district attorney be required to turn over to him for examination his work sheets or trial notes made in preparation for the trial. Thereupon the following occurred: The court denied the request and was correct in so doing. The work sheets of the district attorney which are made by him in preparation for the trial of a criminal case do not come within the coverage of Rule 16(b) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. *544 The guilt of the defendant was overwhelmingly established by competent evidence, and the judgment accordingly is affirmed. DAY and PRINGLE, JJ., concur.