Title: Lofton v. People

State: colorado

Issuer: Colorado Supreme Court

Document:

450 P.2d 638 (1969) Tommy LOFTON, Plaintiff in Error, v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Defendant in Error. No. 22696. Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc. February 10, 1969. As Modified on Denial of Rehearing March 10, 1969. *639 Paul V. Evans, Colorado Springs, for plaintiff in error. Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., John P. Moore, Deputy Atty. Gen., Paul D. Rubner, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for defendant in error. MOORE, Justice.[*] We will refer to plaintiff in error as the defendant. He was accused of armed robbery with intent, if resisted, to maim, wound or kill the victim. Upon conclusion of the trial to a jury he was found guilty. Motion for a new trial was overruled and defendant was sentenced to a term of not less than four nor more than seven years in the state penitentiary. As grounds for reversal of the judgment his attorney presents argument on three points, to wit: 1. The trial court erred in failing to grant a continuance when a witness failed to appear during the trial. 2. The trial court erred in admitting in evidence a knife which was in the possession of the defendant when he was taken into custody. 3. The identification of the defendant by the victim, under all the circumstances disclosed by the record, was not of "sufficient weight" to justify its admission in evidence. The victim of the robbery, one Tommy Hayes, was a soldier stationed at Camp Carson in El Paso county, Colorado. Between 11:30 and 11:45 on the night of April 30, 1966, he and a friend were waiting in a bus station in Colorado Springs. He testified that a person, who thereafter became the accomplice of the defendant, approached them and asked if they would "like a ride back to Fort Carson for bus fare. We said yes. So we got in the car with him. There was another guy already in the car." He testified that one of the two men said he wanted to stop by a girl's house for a moment to which Hayes and his friend agreed. Thereupon defendant drove out to Prospect Lake and "pulled up and stopped." Hayes then described the robbery as follows: * * * * * * After getting in the car at the Nevada street bus station and driving out to Memorial Park where the robbery took place, the car was stopped "five to ten minutes" during which time the crime was committed. Seventeen dollars was taken by the defendant from Hayes' billfold. The victim described the car as follows: The identification of defendant was: "After the robbery Hayes testified that: His companion had taken down the license number and they gave it to the police officer. The information carried on the police pickup was that the victims were not sure about the letters but were certain about the numbers on the license tag. The victim further testified: Following the arrest of defendant, Hayes identified him at police headquarters as being one of the robbers. The police officer who was "flagged down" by the two victims of the robbery corroborated the testimony given by Hayes. Officer Huscher testified that he placed the defendant under arrest on May 1, 1966, at 6:30 P.M. He took a knife from the person of defendant, which was admitted as Exhibit A. Defendant was driving a car that answered the description given by Hayes The witness stopped the defendant and arrested him upon observing that the car he was driving answered the description of the one for which he was looking, as well as the fact that the defendant also fit the description of the robber as given by the victims to the police. In describing the "fuzzy dash" on the car the witness said: This "fuzzy dash" corresponded to the description given by the victim Hayes. The defendant called two witnesses, Terry Dunn and James Daniels, Jr., who testified that they spent the night of April 30, 1966 with the defendant visiting various bars and attending parties at certain girls' homes. These witnesses were soldiers at Fort Carson and were well acquainted with the defendant. They testified that defendant was at Marie Jones' house or at the home of Ivory, another girl friend, at all times when the robbery of Hayes was committed. They named others in attendance at these "parties" including a Sergeant Williams, a girl known as "Slim" and one Harvey Holt. At least three persons were mentioned who could have been called to account for the whereabouts of the defendant at the time of the robbery. The following took place: Following considerable discussion defendant's attorney moved as follows: The court denied the motion and stated that: * * * * * * The defendant took the stand and denied committing the robbery and told substantially the same story as that testified to by Dunn and Daniels. First. Did the trial court err in denying the motion for continuance? This question is answered in the negative. The granting or denial of a continuance is a matter which rests in the sound discretion of the trial judge, and his ruling thereon will not be disturbed unless it is plainly erroneous. Sharp v. People, 90 Colo. 356, 9 P.2d 483; Abshier v. People, 87 Colo. 507, 289 P. 1081. The witness Holt who did not appear was intended to be a third alibi witness. The critical period of time was adequately covered by witnesses who were called. Holt could have provided nothing more than a third source of testimony covering the time already accounted for by Dunn and Daniels. It is clear that at last three other persons residing in Colorado Springs could have been called by defendant to verify his alibi, if indeed his *642 story was true. They were not called and the record discloses no effort to secure their appearance. Holt's testimony could have been, at best, merely cumulative. Second. Did the court err in admitting in evidence the knife taken from the defendant upon his arrest? This question is answered in the negative. The knife taken from the defendant fits the general description, given by the victim, of the knife placed against his throat by the defendant during the robbery. Washington v. People, 158 Colo. 115, 405 P.2d 735. It was for the jury to determine whether the knife found on defendant was used in the robbery. Third. Did the trial court err in holding that the "identification" of the defendant under all the circumstances was sufficient to warrant submission to the jury the question of defendant's participation in the crime? This question is answered in the negative. The victim who identified the defendant had an unusually long time to observe him: When he got into the car at a well lighted bus station; as they drove out to Memorial Park; and during the robbery itself when the defendant held a knife to the victim's throat there was ample time for him to make certain that he recognized his assailant. In Ortega v. People, 161 Colo. 463, 423 P.2d 21, this court said, inter alia: KELLEY, J., not participating. [*] Retired Supreme Court Justice sitting under assignment by the Chief Justice under provisions of Article VI, Section 5(3) of the Constitution of Colorado.