People v. Homan

Supreme Court of Colorado

People v. Homan

521 P.2d 1262, 185 Colo. 56, 1974 Colo. LEXIS 865

CourtSupreme Court of Colorado

DecidedMay 6, 1974

Docket25783

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 521 P.2d 1262 (People v. Homan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Colorado primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Homan, 521 P.2d 1262, 185 Colo. 56, 1974 Colo. LEXIS 865 (Colo. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

MR. JUSTICE ERICKSON

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Rickey Lee Homan was charged and convicted of simply robbery. C.R.S. 1963, 40-5-1. On appeal, he contends that the trial judge committed reversible error in overruling his objection and permitting cross-examination to extend beyond the scope of direct examination.

A trial judge has discretion to determine the scope and the limit of cross-examination. In the absence of an abuse of discretion, the trial judge’s ruling will not be disturbed on review. Archina v. People, 135 Colo. 8, 307 P.2d 1083 (1957). Accord, People v. King, 179 Colo. 94, 498 P.2d 1142 (1972). See also Proposed Federal Rules of Evidence for the United States District Courts and Magistrates, Rule 6-11; 3A, J. Wigmore, Evidence § 944 (Chadbourn rev. 1970); C. McCormick, Evidence § 24 (2d ed. 1972).

Accordingly, we affirm.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE PRINGLE does not participate.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MR. JUSTICE ERICKSON

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Rickey Lee Homan was charged and convicted of simply robbery. C.R.S. 1963, 40-5-1. On appeal, he contends that the trial judge committed reversible error in overruling his objection and permitting cross-examination to extend beyond the scope of direct examination.

A trial judge has discretion to determine the scope and the limit of cross-examination. In the absence of an abuse of discretion, the trial judge’s ruling will not be disturbed on review. Archina v. People, 135 Colo. 8, 307 P.2d 1083 (1957). Accord, People v. King, 179 Colo. 94, 498 P.2d 1142 (1972). See also Proposed Federal Rules of Evidence for the United States District Courts and Magistrates, Rule 6-11; 3A, J. Wigmore, Evidence § 944 (Chadbourn rev. 1970); C. McCormick, Evidence § 24 (2d ed. 1972).

Accordingly, we affirm.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE PRINGLE does not participate.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

521 P.2d 1262, 185 Colo. 56, 1974 Colo. LEXIS 865, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-homan-colo-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack