Court Opinion

ID: 9865304
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 16:31:01.097112+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:38:24.349190
License: Public Domain

Mr. Chief Justice Butler,
concurring.
Several of the instructions given by the court do not, in all respects, state the law as I understand it to be; and if the court’s attention had been called to the situation at the trial and the court had refused to change the instructions, I would be inclined to vote for a reversal of the judgment.
*72Our rule 7 provides: “The court shall afford respective counsel a reasonable time and opportunity to examine proposed instructions, whether requested or to be given by the court of its own motion, and to prepare and present specific objections thereto before such instructions are given to the jury. On motion for new trial, or on review by the Supreme Court, only the grounds so specified shall be considered. ’ ’
We have refused repeatedly to consider assignments of error based on instructions given, when the objections thereto were not made in apt time so as to give the trial court an opportunity to correct the instructions, if erroneous. See, for example, Dillulo v. People, 56 Colo. 339, 341, 138 Pac. 33; Modern Woodmen v. White, 70 Colo. 207, 199 Pac. 965; Sarno v. People, 74 Colo. 528, 223 Pac. 41; Koontz v. People, 82 Colo. 589, 263 Pac. 19.
We have departed from that practice in certain extreme cases; but from an examination of the record, I am satisfied that such departure would not be justified in the present case. At the trial the defendant was represented by two attorneys, one of them being an experienced lawyer of long standing at the bar. The information was filed April 19,1932, and the trial was commenced April 18, 1934. One of the defendant’s attorneys who participated .in the trial had tried a similar case which came to this court and was decided here more than a year before the present case was tried. See Cole v. People, 92 Colo. 145, 18 P. (2d) 470. Counsel had abundant opportunity to advise themselves of the facts in the present case and the law applicable thereto. The instructions, before they were given, were shown to counsel, and counsel were asked by the court whether there were any objections thereto, and they made no objection to the instructions.
In the circumstances, the defendant is not entitled to a consideration of his assignments of error based upon the instructions.
*73The only other assignments are that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict or the judgment, and that the judgment was without and beyond the jurisdiction of the trial court. These assignments are without merit.
In my opinion, the judgment is properly affirmed.