People v. Patterson

Supreme Court of Colorado

People v. Patterson

485 P.2d 494, 175 Colo. 19

CourtSupreme Court of Colorado

DecidedJune 1, 1971

DocketNo. 25115

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 485 P.2d 494 (People v. Patterson) 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. Patterson, 485 P.2d 494, 175 Colo. 19 (Colo. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Pringle

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This interlocutory appeal is brought by Patterson, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, from an adverse ruling in the trial court on his motion to suppress evidence, which he alleges was obtained in violation of his constitutional rights. Insofar as is applicable to the issue raised here, his motion to suppress in the court below alleged that narcotic substances were seized from him by entrapment. The district attorney moved to quash the motion on the grounds that entrapment is a defense to the merits, and is not a proper ground for a motion to suppress. The trial court agreed with the position of the district attorney and denied the motion.

The law is clear that entrapment is a defense which goes to the merits of the charge against a defendant. Gonzales v. People, 168 Colo. 545, 452 P.2d 46; Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435, 53 S.Ct. 210, 77 L.Ed. 413. Entrapment does not present a question of admissibility of evidence, but presents rather the proposition that a conviction may not be obtained, no matter what the evidence, where the authorities instigated the acts complained of, and this is generally a question of fact for a jury. We hold, therefore, that entrapment is not within the scope of Crim. P. 41(e) which deals solely with the question of admissibility.

Unless an adverse trial court ruling is within the scope of Crim. P. 41(e) or (g), it is not within our jurisdiction on interlocutory appeal under C.A.R. 4.1.

The ruling is affirmed.

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

Mr. Chief Justice Pringle

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This interlocutory appeal is brought by Patterson, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, from an adverse ruling in the trial court on his motion to suppress evidence, which he alleges was obtained in violation of his constitutional rights. Insofar as is applicable to the issue raised here, his motion to suppress in the court below alleged that narcotic substances were seized from him by entrapment. The district attorney moved to quash the motion on the grounds that entrapment is a defense to the merits, and is not a proper ground for a motion to suppress. The trial court agreed with the position of the district attorney and denied the motion.

The law is clear that entrapment is a defense which goes to the merits of the charge against a defendant. Gonzales v. People, 168 Colo. 545, 452 P.2d 46; Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435, 53 S.Ct. 210, 77 L.Ed. 413. Entrapment does not present a question of admissibility of evidence, but presents rather the proposition that a conviction may not be obtained, no matter what the evidence, where the authorities instigated the acts complained of, and this is generally a question of fact for a jury. We hold, therefore, that entrapment is not within the scope of Crim. P. 41(e) which deals solely with the question of admissibility.

Unless an adverse trial court ruling is within the scope of Crim. P. 41(e) or (g), it is not within our jurisdiction on interlocutory appeal under C.A.R. 4.1.

The ruling is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

485 P.2d 494, 175 Colo. 19, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-patterson-colo-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack