People v. Lovato

Supreme Court of Colorado

People v. Lovato

506 P.2d 361, 180 Colo. 445, 1973 Colo. LEXIS 873

CourtSupreme Court of Colorado

DecidedFebruary 13, 1973

Docket25015

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 506 P.2d 361 (People v. Lovato) 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. Lovato, 506 P.2d 361, 180 Colo. 445, 1973 Colo. LEXIS 873 (Colo. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

MR. JUSTICE ERICKSON

delivered the opinion of the Court.

*447 Alfonso Ben Lovato, Jr. was duly convicted by a jury of the crime of burglary. 1967 Perm. Supp., C.R.S. 1963, 40-3-5. After being sentenced to the penitentiary, he appealed, asserting that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction and claiming that his constitutional rights were violated. This is another in an almost endless chain of cases that must be determined on the basis of the validity of a defendant’s statement to the police and the suggestiveness of circumstances surrounding a police lineup.

The evidence relating to identification and to the defendant’s confession, if properly admitted, more than justifies the trial court’s denial of the motion for judgment of acquittal. McClendon v. People, 174 Colo. 7, 481 P.2d 715 (1971). The conviction, therefore, should be upheld if the trial court properly considered and presented the issues relating to identification and the defendant’s statements to the jury. The trial court conducted a full in camera hearing to determine whether the defendant’s confession was voluntary and to ascertain whether the defendant was advised of the rights afforded him by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), and resolved the issue against the defendant on the confession issue. The weight to be given to the defendant’s confession was then left to the jury, in accordance with the mandate of Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 12 L.Ed.2d 908 (1964). People v. Smith, 179 Colo. 413, 500 P.2d 1177 (1972); Reed v. People, 174 Colo. 43, 482 P.2d 110 (1971).

As to the police lineup, the identification issue was first considered in an in camera hearing and was then submitted to the jury with proper instructions. Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967); Sandoval v. People, 180 Colo. 180, 503 P.2d 1020 (1972); Maynes v. People, 178 Colo. 88, 495 P.2d 551 (1972). The defendant was afforded every right which is guaranteed to him by the United States and Colorado Constitutions. None of the other errors which are asserted on appeal require comment.

Accordingly, we affirm.

MR. JUSTICE GROVES 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.

*447 Alfonso Ben Lovato, Jr. was duly convicted by a jury of the crime of burglary. 1967 Perm. Supp., C.R.S. 1963, 40-3-5. After being sentenced to the penitentiary, he appealed, asserting that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction and claiming that his constitutional rights were violated. This is another in an almost endless chain of cases that must be determined on the basis of the validity of a defendant’s statement to the police and the suggestiveness of circumstances surrounding a police lineup.

The evidence relating to identification and to the defendant’s confession, if properly admitted, more than justifies the trial court’s denial of the motion for judgment of acquittal. McClendon v. People, 174 Colo. 7, 481 P.2d 715 (1971). The conviction, therefore, should be upheld if the trial court properly considered and presented the issues relating to identification and the defendant’s statements to the jury. The trial court conducted a full in camera hearing to determine whether the defendant’s confession was voluntary and to ascertain whether the defendant was advised of the rights afforded him by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), and resolved the issue against the defendant on the confession issue. The weight to be given to the defendant’s confession was then left to the jury, in accordance with the mandate of Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 12 L.Ed.2d 908 (1964). People v. Smith, 179 Colo. 413, 500 P.2d 1177 (1972); Reed v. People, 174 Colo. 43, 482 P.2d 110 (1971).

As to the police lineup, the identification issue was first considered in an in camera hearing and was then submitted to the jury with proper instructions. Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967); Sandoval v. People, 180 Colo. 180, 503 P.2d 1020 (1972); Maynes v. People, 178 Colo. 88, 495 P.2d 551 (1972). The defendant was afforded every right which is guaranteed to him by the United States and Colorado Constitutions. None of the other errors which are asserted on appeal require comment.

Accordingly, we affirm.

MR. JUSTICE GROVES does not participate.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

506 P.2d 361, 180 Colo. 445, 1973 Colo. LEXIS 873, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lovato-colo-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack