Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendanthearingtrialtestimonyobjectionpiracy
defendanthearingtrialobjection

Related Cases

People v. Frierson, 25 Cal.3d 142, 599 P.2d 587, 158 Cal.Rptr. 281
View Case »
Campbell v. Commonwealth, 12 Va.App. 476, 405 S.E.2d 1
View Case »
People v. Horrocks, 190 Colo. 501, 549 P.2d 400
View Case »
People v. Dellinger, 49 Cal.3d 1212, 783 P.2d 200, 264 Cal.Rptr. 841
View Case »
U.S. v. Casperson, 773 F.2d 216
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Goddard v. People, 172 Colo. 498, 474 P.2d 210

Facts

Walter Goddard, Jr. was charged with burglary and conspiracy after he and two others broke into the Arts and Sciences Building of Durango High School. Goddard admitted to entering the building unlawfully and removing items, but claimed he did not intend to commit larceny. During the trial, he objected to the admission of his statement to police, arguing it was made without being informed of his rights.

The defendant admits that he broke into and entered the Arts and Sciences Building of the Durango High School on the night in question.

Issue

Did the trial court err in admitting the defendant's statement to police without conducting an in camera hearing to determine its voluntariness?

The defendant objected at trial to the admission into evidence of his statement made to Captain Garnand of the Durango Police Department on the basis that he had not been informed of his constitutional rights and had not waived them at the time the statement was made.

Rule

A defendant has the constitutional right to object to the use of his confession or admission and to have an in camera hearing on the issue of its voluntariness, as established in Jackson v. Denno and Whitman v. People.

Jackson v. Denno, Supra, stands for the proposition that a defendant has the constitutional right to object to the use of his confession or admission at some stage of the proceedings and have an In camera hearing on the issue of its voluntariness.

Analysis

The court found that the trial judge erred by ruling on the objection to the statement without conducting a hearing. The judge had heard testimony from police officers but did not consider the defendant's testimony regarding the circumstances under which the statement was made. The court emphasized that if the statement was made in response to police questioning, the requirements of Miranda must be met.

We hold that the judge was in error in ruling on the objection without conducting a hearing to determine whether the statement was given by the defendant in response to police questioning, and if so whether the requirements of Miranda had been met.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and remanded the case for an in camera hearing to determine the voluntariness of the defendant's statement.

The case is reversed and remanded to the trial court for an In camera hearing on the question of voluntariness.

Who won?

Walter Goddard, Jr. prevailed because the court found that the trial judge failed to conduct a necessary hearing regarding the voluntariness of his statement to police.

We conclude that the defendant is entitled to a hearing and a determination by a judge on the question of the voluntariness of his statement.

You must be