Court Opinion

ID: 9536939
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:10:01.29311+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:55:36.586993
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE ERICKSON
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
I dissent for all of the reasons which Mr. Justice Groves has set forth in his dissent. I also dissent because of the fact that other errors occurred in the course of the trial that were, in my opinion, not harmless.
I.
OTHER CRIMES
The majority opinion erodes Stull v. People, 140 Colo. 278, 344 P.2d 455 (1959). It does total violence to the theory behind Drew v. United States, 331 F.2d 85 (D.C. Cir. 1964). See Note, 74 Yale L. J. 553 (1965). The risk of prejudice by the admission of items connected with oher *328offenses is too great to cavalierly determine that this was harmless.
II.
DEATH CERTIFICATE
The death certificate was admitted as evidence containing inadmissible hearsay. Orth v. Bauer, 163 Colo. 136, 429 P.2d 279 (1967); Interstate Life & Accident Co. v. Wilmont, 123 Ga. App. 337, 180 S.E.2d 913 (1971); Charleston National Bank v. Hennessy, 404 F.2d 539 (5th Cir. 1968). The practice of admitting a death certificate to establish elements of a crime, apart from death, should be condemned. The error is not harmless in my mind.
III.
CLOSING ARGUMENT
The district attorney’s closing argument cannot, in my mind, be justified as being mere retaliation. Abuses such as occurred in this case were condemned by the Supreme Court of the United States in Griffin v. State of California, 380 U.S. 609, 85 S.Ct. 1229, 14 L. Ed. 2d 106 (1965). See also, Edwards v. Patterson, 249 F. Supp. 311 (D.C. Colo. 1965). The court, following the comments of the district attorney, which directly pointed to the defendant Kurtz’s failure to testify, were condemned as improper. However, no admonition was given to the district attorney, and the court made no attempt to correct the error. The absence of an attempt to correct the error adds to the errors outlined in the dissenting opinions.
IV.
CUMULATIVE ERROR
The combined effect of all of the errors was to deny the defendants a fair trial. The record is replete with error and to attempt to single out which of the many errors resulted in a deprivation of a fair trial would be sheer speculation. Oaks v. People, 150 Colo. 64, 371 P.2d 443 (1962).
MR. JUSTICE DAY authorizes me to state that he would join in Point IV of this dissent.