Neighbors v. People

Full title: Clifford Richard Neighbors v. The People of the State of Colorado

Court: Supreme Court of Colorado. In Department

Date published: Feb 14, 1967

423 P.2d 838 (Colo. 1967)

423 P.2d 838

Opinion

No. 22033.

Decided February 14, 1967.

Defendant was convicted of the crime of aggravated robbery and brought error.

Affirmed.

1. ROBBERY — Aggravated — Sufficiency of Evidence — Guilt — Jury. In prosecution for the crime of aggravated robbery, record reflects sufficient evidence to support the verdict of the jury regarding the guilt of the defendant.

2. CRIMINAL LAW — Jury — Inference — Facts — Guilt — Evidence — Review — Matter of Law. Ordinarily, it is for the jury to determine what inference shall be drawn from facts proved and whether defendant's guilt shall be inferred from the evidence, and if the inference of guilt fairly flows from the evidence reviewing court cannot say as a matter of law that the jury should not have adopted the view it did.

Error the the District Court of the City and County of Denver, Honorable Henry E. Santo, Judge.

John G. Field, for plaintiff in error.

Duke W. Dunbar, Attorney General, Frank E. Hickey, Deputy, George E. DeRoos, Assistant, for defendant in error.

Opinion by MR. CHIEF JUSTICE MOORE.

Clifford Richard Neighbors was convicted of the crime of aggravated robbery as defined by C.R.S. 1963, 40-5-1 (2)(b). He was sentenced to a term of from thirty-five years to life imprisonment in the state penitentiary.

The single question presented as ground for reversal on this writ of error is: Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the verdict of the jury and the judgment entered thereon?

[1,2] We have read the transcript of the evidence and the briefs filed by counsel, and have heard the oral arguments of attorneys for the defendant and for the people. The following language to be found in Wolfe v. The People, 90 Colo. 102, 6 P.2d 927, and quoted with approval in Falcon v. The People, 143 Colo. 173, 352 P.2d 310, is applicable to the instant action:

"Ordinarily it is for the jury to determine what inference shall be drawn from facts proven and whether, as here, the defendant's guilt shall be inferred from the evidence. 4 Elliott on Evidence, p. 288, § 3009. If the inference of guilt fairly flows from the evidence, we can not say, as a matter of law, that the jury should not have adopted the view it did. * * *"

Opinion by MR. CHIEF JUSTICE MOORE.

The judgment is affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE McWILLIAMS, MR. JUSTICE PRINGLE and MR. JUSTICE HODGES concur.