Court Opinion

ID: 9532018
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:17:09.473529+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:39.002287
License: Public Domain

Mr. Chief Justice McWilliams:
dissenting:
I dissent for the reasons set forth in Baker v. People, 168 Colo. 11, 449 P.2d 815. I agree with the statement *196in the majority opinion that under Jackson v. Denno, supra, a “defendant has a constitutional right at some stage in the proceedings to object to the use of a confession and have a fair hearing and reliable determination of the issue of voluntariness.” In my view, however, the facts of the instant case simply do not bring it under Jackson v. Denno, supra. Upon trial Whitman did not object to the introduction into evidence of the statements made by him to the police officers and on the contrary affirmatively indicated that he indeed had no objection thereto. Furthermore, as I read the record, the issue of the voluntariness of his statements was not in any other manner raised by Whitman during the course of his trial. Not only, then, was the issue of voluntariness not raised by Whitman either directly or indirectly during his trial, but the issue was not thereafter raised in his motion for a new trial, nor was it even sought to be injected into our prior review upon writ of error of his conviction. Rather, the issue of the voluntariness of Whitman’s statements to the police is raised for the first time several years after his trial in a motion under Rule 35(b). In my view Jackson v. Denno does not dictate the result reached by the majority, and I would not extend the rule of Jackson v. Denno to include the instant case.
I am authorized to state that Mr. Justice Groves concurs in this dissent.