Court Opinion

ID: 9543263
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:43:48.234034+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:10:02.696834
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Hall
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion.
From the opinion it would seem that the majority of this court accept defendant’s self-serving declarations, repeated by the People’s witness, and his own testimony to the effect that he acted in self defense, as conclusive proof of the facts surrounding the killing.
If such were proper, then the only thing the trial judge could do would be to conclude, as does the defendant, that the killing was in self defense and no crime committed. To approve such a doctrine could well result in a directed verdict of not guilty in all murder cases where there are no eye witnesses to the killing. All a defendant would have to do would be to take the witness stand and testify that he acted in defense of his life and that would end the matter.
In Leopold v. People, 105 Colo. 147, 95 P. (2d) 811, this court said: “Further, where pertinent, the question of intent must be determined from all the circumstances connected with the perpetration of the offense in which *379declarations of the defendant, while a part of the panorama, have no special or controlling effect. * *
Here, we have a killing — defendant admits that he wielded the deadly weapon which produced the death. Such evidence is sufficient, in my opinion, to sustain a verdict of guilty of any degree of murder or manslaughter. The killing at the hand of the defendant having been established, then it was up to the defendant, if he so chose, to seek to justify his actions and to produce evidence sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury as to his guilt. This the defendant here undertook to do — just how far he succeeded was for the jury to determine under proper instructions. This problem is one for resolution by the jury, not the trial judge or this court.
The verdict of the jury in this case is indicative of the fact that the jury took defendant’s story with one or more grains of salt. Had the jury accepted his story as true, as the majority of this court apparently accept it, then they could have, and under the instructions given should have, found the defendant not guilty.
I am of the opinion that the defendant was given the benefit of all doubts, the jury were properly instructed and they and they alone were empowered to resolve the factual questions presented, and I find no sanction for this court to pass on the credibility of defendant’s witnesses or the weight to be attached to their testimony.
The judgment should be affirmed.