Title: Tomsak v. People

State: colorado

Issuer: Colorado Supreme Court

Document:

442 P.2d 825 (1968) Joseph L. TOMSAK and Kent LeRoy Stricker, Plaintiffs in Error, v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Defendant in Error. No. 22634. Supreme Court of Colorado, In Department. July 1, 1968. *826 Donald P. MacDonald, Jim R. Carrigan, Denver, for plaintiffs in error. Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Atty. Gen., Denver, John P. Moore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error. MOORE, Chief Justice. Plaintiffs in error will be referred to as the defendants. They were convicts serving a term in the state penitentiary and while playing in a band walked away and were endeavoring to escape when they committed the acts for which they were charged. They were accused, and found guilty, of the crimes of burglary, larceny of a motor vehicle, and kidnapping, and, by proper judgment in accordance with the verdicts of the jury, were sentenced to further confinement in the penitentiary. At the close of the People's case a recess was taken by the court and by consent of all the parties the jury was permitted to separate and go to their respective homes for the night. They were properly instructed not to discuss the case during the recess; not to read any newspaper articles; or watch any television programs pertaining to the case. These events all occurred on Thursday, January 11, 1966. On that evening an article concerning the case appeared in a paper published in Canon City, Colorado. The article gave details of the evidence introduced at the trial; stated that the defendants were convicts who had attempted to escape from the prison; were on trial for the escape; and were apprehended following their disappearance from the prison band. The defendants rely on the following portion of the newspaper article relating to their arrest: On the morning following the appearance of the newspaper article defendants filed a written motion for a mistrial, which was overruled by the trial judge the court commenting as follows: Quintana v. People, 158 Colo. 189, 405 P.2d 740, and Mares v. United States, 10 Cir., 383 F.2d 811, are relied on by defendants as supporting their position that a mistrial should have been granted. Each of those cases is distinguishable on the facts from the case at bar. In the instant case it is not shown that any of the jurors had read the article. Admittedly, three statements were contained in the article which were not factually accurate: First. The defendants were not on trial for escape. However, there was an abundance *827 of evidence, all of which was competent and admitted without objection, proving that defendants were escapees from the prison. Second. There was testimony of the death of a pet dog belonging to the Hardesty family; that the home had been entered by the defendants; and that members of the family had been terrorized. There was no direct evidence that the defendants had killed the dog. However, the jurors under the circumstances could have drawn the inference that it had been killed by defendants. Third. There was no evidence as to the location of the Trott Ranch where defendants were apprehended by officers of the prison. It could not possibly make any difference where the Trott Ranch was located and therefore could not have been prejudicial. Assuming that all the jurors had read the newspaper story in violation of the court's instruction, it is wholly unreasonable to conclude that anything contained therein could have influenced any juror to the prejudice of the defendants. No showing was made that anything in the article came to the attention of any of the jurors. The law of this state on the subject is expressed in Hammons v. People, 153 Colo. 193, 385 P.2d 592, wherein we stated, inter alia: The duty to make the showing of prejudice rested upon the defendants. They made no showing that any one of the jurors had read the news account. There was ample proof to establish each of the crimes of which defendants were found guilty. Jennefer Hardesty was one of the victims of the acts of defendants. She related the story of what happened; told of various conversations with the defendants in which they stated that they were escapees from prison; and also how they waited for her father to come home so that they might take his car for use in their escape. All of this evidence was admitted without objection. Mr. Hardesty was on the witness stand and told of how he was tied and how the defendants took his clothing and other articles. He was cross-examined by defense counsel and was asked: It is urged as ground for reversal that the crime of kidnapping was not established by the evidence. Not so. C.R.S.1963, 40-2-44(2) provides: The evidence is overwhelming and undisputed that both Jennefer Hardesty and Mr. Hardesty her father were, at the *828 point of a gun, detained, seized, confined and imprisoned within their own home, and that the defendants used force and made threats of personal harm if their demands were not complied with. Mr. Lee Trott of Guffey, Colorado, testified of defendants coming to his place, and that they told him who they were. Mr. Trott then related the event of his sick wife getting out of bed to get them something to eat. There was further evidence of how the defendants finally surrendered to the prison officers. No objections were made to any of the evidence hereinabove mentioned. The motion for a new trial contains no assignment that error was committed in permitting evidence to be introduced that proved the defendants were escapees. Defendants raise certain questions regarding the instructions. These points are before the court for the first time and were not raised in the trial court. There were no objections to the instructions which were given. The motion for a new trial is silent with regard thereto. The two instructions tendered by defendants were fully covered in other instructions. Matters presented for the first time on writ of error will not be considered by this court. Rhodus v. People, 158 Colo. 264, 406 P.2d 679; Zeiler v. People, 157 Colo. 332, 403 P.2d 439; Cruz v. People, 149 Colo. 187, 368 P.2d 774; Colo.R.Crim.P. 30. The judgment is affirmed. McWILLIAMS and PRINGLE, JJ., concur.