People v. Lee

Supreme Court of Colorado

People v. Lee

607 P.2d 998, 199 Colo. 301, 1980 Colo. LEXIS 604

CourtSupreme Court of Colorado

DecidedMarch 10, 1980

Docket79SA420

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 607 P.2d 998 (People v. Lee) 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. Lee, 607 P.2d 998, 199 Colo. 301, 1980 Colo. LEXIS 604 (Colo. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam

This is an appeal from a conviction for second degree murder. Section 18-3-103, C.R.S. 1973 (now in 1978 Repl. Vol. 8). We affirm.

The prosecution established through eye-witness testimony that the defendant-appellant, Sylvester Lee, shot and killed Ralph Brown at the Cat and Fiddle Lounge. The defendant presented evidence to show that he was intoxicated, and, on appeal, the defendant raises the same constitutional issues relating to the second-degree murder statute which we addressed in People v. Delguidice, 199 Colo. 41, 606 P.2d 840 (1979) and People v. White, 199 Colo. 82, 606 P.2d 847 (1980).

In addition, the defendant-appellant asserts that error occurred when his counsel challenged a juror for cause and the challenge was denied. A review of the voir dire examination of the juror in question has convinced us that the denial of the defendant-appellant’s challenge for cause did not constitute reversible error. See Brake v. People, 191 Colo. 390, 553 P.2d 763 (1976).

The defendant-appellant also claims that error occurred when the court gave an approved pattern jury instruction on self-defense and not an instruction tendered by defense counsel. When the instructions are viewed as a whole, the jury was properly instructed on self-defense. It is not reversible error to refuse an instruction tendered by the defense when the contents of that instruction are embodied in the court’s other instructions. People v. Holmes, 191 Colo. 477, 553 P.2d 786 (1976).

A number of issues on appeal were earlier resolved against the defendant-appellant by the trial judge. Our review of the record convinces us that reversible error did not occur in the trial of this case. A defendant *303 is entitled to a fair trial, but not a perfect trial. The evidence of guilt was overwhelming and the errors asserted did not affect the substantial rights of the defendant appellant and were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1966).

Accordingly, we affirm.

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

Per Curiam

This is an appeal from a conviction for second degree murder. Section 18-3-103, C.R.S. 1973 (now in 1978 Repl. Vol. 8). We affirm.

The prosecution established through eye-witness testimony that the defendant-appellant, Sylvester Lee, shot and killed Ralph Brown at the Cat and Fiddle Lounge. The defendant presented evidence to show that he was intoxicated, and, on appeal, the defendant raises the same constitutional issues relating to the second-degree murder statute which we addressed in People v. Delguidice, 199 Colo. 41, 606 P.2d 840 (1979) and People v. White, 199 Colo. 82, 606 P.2d 847 (1980).

In addition, the defendant-appellant asserts that error occurred when his counsel challenged a juror for cause and the challenge was denied. A review of the voir dire examination of the juror in question has convinced us that the denial of the defendant-appellant’s challenge for cause did not constitute reversible error. See Brake v. People, 191 Colo. 390, 553 P.2d 763 (1976).

The defendant-appellant also claims that error occurred when the court gave an approved pattern jury instruction on self-defense and not an instruction tendered by defense counsel. When the instructions are viewed as a whole, the jury was properly instructed on self-defense. It is not reversible error to refuse an instruction tendered by the defense when the contents of that instruction are embodied in the court’s other instructions. People v. Holmes, 191 Colo. 477, 553 P.2d 786 (1976).

A number of issues on appeal were earlier resolved against the defendant-appellant by the trial judge. Our review of the record convinces us that reversible error did not occur in the trial of this case. A defendant *303 is entitled to a fair trial, but not a perfect trial. The evidence of guilt was overwhelming and the errors asserted did not affect the substantial rights of the defendant appellant and were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1966).

Accordingly, we affirm.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

607 P.2d 998, 199 Colo. 301, 1980 Colo. LEXIS 604, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lee-colo-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack