Court Opinion

ID: 9571687
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:34:14.42898+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:30:48.749022
License: Public Domain

VAN CISE, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree with point I in the majority opinion.
For the reasons given in my dissent in People v. Spring, supra, I disagree with point II in the majority opinion. Questions *386regarding defendant’s ownership or right to possession of the automobile, the circumstances under which he obtained it, and inevitably, his involvement in the killing of the owner of the automobile, were all foreseeable. He was given the Miranda warnings and waived his rights before any questioning. There was no reason to repeat the process. Nor is there any requirement that a suspect be informed of specific charges which may be brought against him. People v. Herrera, 633 P.2d 1091 (Colo.App.1981). The statements were properly admitted.
However, I agree with points III and IV of the majority opinion and, therefore, concur in reversing the first degree murder conviction and remanding for a new trial on that charge.
Since points III and IV pertain only to the murder charge, I would affirm the aggravated robbery conviction.