People v. Rogers

Supreme Court of Colorado

People v. Rogers

493 P.2d 21, 177 Colo. 155

CourtSupreme Court of Colorado

DecidedJanuary 24, 1972

DocketNo. 25232

StatusPublished

This text of 493 P.2d 21 (People v. Rogers) 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. Rogers, 493 P.2d 21, 177 Colo. 155 (Colo. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam

Defendant-Appellant, Lloyd Martin Rogers, was convicted of theft of an automobile. He contends that the evidence was insufficient on which to support the conviction. The attorney general confesses error. We agree.

The People’s evidence showed that the defendant entered the car near Sugar City, Colorado, with three other people some time after it was stolen in Rocky Ford, Colorado. There is no evidence that the defendant knew the car was stolen. There was evidence that somebody in the car made the statement that he would dump the car where nobody would find it. The “somebody” was never identified. The pick-up was later found abandoned at a lake in the vicinity.

Considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, we find no evidence in the record to connect this defendant with the theft of the automobile in question.

The judgment must be reversed and remanded to the trial court with directions to dismiss the complaint against Lloyd Martin Rogers.

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

Per Curiam

Defendant-Appellant, Lloyd Martin Rogers, was convicted of theft of an automobile. He contends that the evidence was insufficient on which to support the conviction. The attorney general confesses error. We agree.

The People’s evidence showed that the defendant entered the car near Sugar City, Colorado, with three other people some time after it was stolen in Rocky Ford, Colorado. There is no evidence that the defendant knew the car was stolen. There was evidence that somebody in the car made the statement that he would dump the car where nobody would find it. The “somebody” was never identified. The pick-up was later found abandoned at a lake in the vicinity.

Considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, we find no evidence in the record to connect this defendant with the theft of the automobile in question.

The judgment must be reversed and remanded to the trial court with directions to dismiss the complaint against Lloyd Martin Rogers.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

493 P.2d 21, 177 Colo. 155, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rogers-colo-1972.