Court Opinion

ID: 9864828
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 16:13:15.694423+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:32:08.613189
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Bouck,
dissenting.
From the majority opinion I dissent. What I shall say will be said as if John Pacheco were the sole defendant. My reason for dissenting is that the trial court refused John’s request to instruct the jury in regard to manslaughter.
A brief and dispassionate recital of the main facts may not be amiss.
John Pacheco, the defendant, 25-year-old Spanish - American, dropped in at Clifford Smith’s home near Wellington in Larimer county, Colorado, on February 27, 1934, with Louis, his elder brother, aged 37. He did not know any reason for the trip except that he and Louis were out to hunt rabbits or coyotes. He had a 22 rifle be*410longing to a young brother; Louis had an old single shot pistol.
A boy named Bobby Griffin lived at the Smith house. He was there alone when the two brothers arrived. The Smiths were absent, having- gone to attend a school entertainment. John went some distance from the house on a legitimate errand. There had been no trouble of any kind and nothing unusual when he left the house. He returned. In the meantime Louis had shot Bobby, but it does not appear that John knew this until after the entire series of tragedies was complete.
Smith entered his house a few minutes later. What happened immediately thereafter, including the killing of Smith, will be dealt with later.
After the killing of Smith, the brothers came out of the house, Louis ahead of John. Mrs. Smith, who, when she and her husband returned, had noticed that somebody was inside, remained outdoors. Smith himself went in. She heard a shot within, turned and ran away. Louis shot her. She subsequently recovered and was a witness at the trial. Except in connection with the killing of Smith inside the house, John fired no shots. Whether John saw his brother shoot Mrs. Smith is not certain. He helped Louis carry her into the house.
It is uncontradicted that the shooting of Bobby was done out of John’s presence and without his knowledge; also that Mrs. Smith was not shot by John, but by John’s brother. These two shootings respectively preceded and followed the shooting of Clifford Smith.
I now revert to the killing of Smith. Under all the evidence, this killing-—so far as John is involved-—was an entirely separate transaction from the others.
What is the evidence adduced in relation to this transaction?
For the sake of the present discussion I concede at the outset that there is substantial evidence tending to prove both John and Louis to have committed upon Clifford Smith murder of the first or second degree. On the other *411hand, does any of the evidence tend to support the theory of John’s attorney that John’s killing of Smith was manslaughter? If it does, then there should have been applied in favor of John the principle laid down by this court in the case of Jabich v. People, 58 Colo. 175, 143 Pac. 1092. See also: Crawford v. People, 12 Colo. 290, 20 Pac. 769; Harris v. People, 55 Colo. 407, 135 Pac. 785.
What, then, was the evidence that would tend to show the Smith homicide was not murder, but possibly manslaughter?
John’s own testimony regarding what occurred between him and Smith is in substance as follows: “* * * * On the way home * * * we [John and his brother Louis] just come into Smith’s house * * * so when Smith come in, so my brother said to him at that time, about getting a little money for this work he done [Louis had admittedly worked for Smith] * * * Cliff said ‘Why, I don’t believe I can give you no money,’ he said, and then he said ‘How about that calf of mine that you butchered,’ and so at that time, my brother said, Well, he said ‘I don’t want no trouble at all’ and so he talked over some more about that money, and so pretty soon Mr. Smith got an iron piece there, and he was going to hit brother, I was standing on the side and so then he turned around to hit me with that iron and so brother shot at him, and so then he turned around and went to hit brother again and so I was going to defend my brother because I had to, and so I shot him too * *
The people’s evidence shows clearly that Smith lay dead on the floor with his arms outstretched. Not one iota of evidence contradicts the story of John about the iron. The position of Smith’s body seems to corroborate John. But, corroborated or not, the testimony of John is in the record. Whether it was true or false is a question that was for the jury to decide, upon proper instructions as to the law. The omission of the manslaughter instruction, which would have enabled the jury to consider this defense, thus *412amounted, I think, to a denial of the fair trial to which. John was entitled.
“No matter how improbable or unreasonable the contention, defendant was entitled to an appropriate instruction upon the hypothesis that it might be true. ’ ’ Jabich v. People, supra, at page 179 of 58 Colo., and page 1092 of 143 Pac.
It is not denied or doubted that, if John’s testimony is true, John’s admitted killing of Smith is not murder, but voluntary manslaughter. This is familiar law. Compare Edwards v. People, 73 Colo. 377, 215 Pac. 855, where this court held that a conviction of manslaughter in a similar situation was proper.
The question is a question of fact. As such it should have been submitted to the jury in the district court. The refusal of the tendered manslaughter instruction was, I think, prejudicial error. In view of this, I cannot join in approving the death penalty imposed upon John Pacheco, and respectfully dissent.