Wilson v. People

100 Colo. 441, 87 P.2d 5 (1939)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Pierce was looking for a place where he could purchase more liquor. Pierce approached D who was at a cafe and prevailed upon him to make an effort to find such a place. They left the cafe and went to the Commercial Hotel, where Pierce borrowed some money. They eventually procured a bottle of the gin and returned to the Cafe. A wristwatch which D had been wearing disappeared while he was in the company of Pierce. He accused Pierce of taking it. Pierce denied the theft. The argument became so noisy that they were asked to leave the cafe. They then went to another cafe, and the argument concerning the watch was resumed. During this time, Pierce specifically mentioned his burglary of the Wheat Growers Cafe. There also was talk concerning tools, and Pierce wrote down a list of tools that would be needed, and D said that he could get them for him. They conceived the idea of breaking into a drugstore. They went to the store and tried several doors and eventually entry through the front transom. D boosted Pierce so that he could break the glass and after looking around to see if anyone had heard them, D again lifted Pierce and the latter handed the broken glass to D, who dropped it on the cement. D lifted Pierce so he could crawl through the transom. Then D ran to his father's office and telephoned the police to come. He then returned and a few moments before the police arrived, Pierce handed to D two or three bottles of liquor which he placed on the cement. Immediately after arrival of the police D told them that Pierce was inside. D admitted assisting Pierce who had escaped through the back door. D volunteered to track him down. D claimed that his connection with the burglary was for the purpose of getting even with Pierce for taking his watch. D also wanted to catch him in the act. Substantially his defense at trial was that he had no criminal intent to feloniously burglarize or steal. D was convicted of aiding and abetting. At the trial court, D attempted to introduce evidence showing that he was trying to 'set up' Pierce so that he would be arrested, and so that D could get his watch back. The judge refused to allow this defense. The trial court instructed the jury 'One may not participate in the commission of a felony and then obtain immunity from punishment on the ground that he was a mere detective or spy. One who attempts to detect the commission of crime in others must himself stop short of lending assistance, or participation in the commission of the crime.' D appealed.