Court Opinion

ID: 9865343
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 16:32:18.95643+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:38:30.279160
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Otto Bock
dissenting.
I regret my inability to concur in the affirmance herein. The information alleged that the offense was committed February 26, 1937. At the trial the people selected the date of September 15, 1936, as the time of the commission of the offense. The testimony of other offenses related to a period approximately two weeks subsequent to that date. When the court admitted that testimony there was no evidence then, or at any time thereafter, of the existence of a common-law marriage on September 15, 1936. Its scope was in no way limited by the court in its instructions to the jury. The admission of this evidence was highly prejudicial. It is true that this error was not raised in the assignments. However, we have held that we may take notice' of it when it. is necessary to do justice. Baker v. Denver Tramway Co., 72 Colo. 233, 210 Pac. 845; Universal Indemnity Ins. *93Co. v. Tenery, 96 Colo. 10, 39 P. (2d). 776; Reppin v. People, 95 Colo. 192, 34 P. (2d) 71. Surely, the responsibility of the administration of justice in a criminal trial is not solely limited to counsel for the defendant.
The judgment should be reversed and the cause remanded, with instructions that a new trial be granted.
Mr. Chief Justice Hilliard and Mr. Justice Bakke concur in this opinion.