Opinion
No. 21778.
Decided February 27, 1967.
Defendant was convicted of felonious assault, taking improper and indecent liberties with person of child, and enticement.
Affirmed.
1. CRIMINAL LAW — Instruction — Failure to Object — Similar Offense — Reversal. Where defendant failed to object in trial court to any instruction given by court or to testimony of alleged similar offense, held, under such circumstances he is not entitled to reversal of conviction on those bases.
2. Similar Offense — Felonious Assault — Indecent Liberties — Child. Admission of similar offense evidence for consideration of jury was not improper in prosecution for feloniously assaulting and taking improper liberties with person of child.
Error to the District Court of the City and County of Denver, Honorable Henry E. Santo, Judge.
Zarlengo, Zarlengo, Seavy and Mulligan, for plaintiff in error.
Duke W. Dunbar, Attorney General, Frank E. Hickey, Deputy, James F. Pamp, Assistant, for defendant in error.
William H. Brown was convicted on two counts contained in an information in which it was alleged: (1) That he "did feloniously assault one _______________ and did take improper and indecent liberties with the person of such child"; and (2) that he "did entice _______________ into a room for the purpose of taking immodest, improper, immoral and indecent liberties with the person of such child."
As grounds for reversal of the judgments entered on the guilty verdicts returned by the jury it is argued that: (1) The court failed to instruct the jury upon the crime charged so as to inform it of that which it was to find the defendant guilty or innocent"; and (2) that "The court committed error in permitting the introduction of evidence pertaining to an alleged crime separate and apart from that which defendant was charged."
[1, 2] There is no merit to either argument. In the trial court no objection was made to any instruction given by the court; no objection was made to the testimony of the alleged similar offense; and the motion for a new trial made no reference to the matters argued in this court as grounds for reversal. Even if the points urged for the first time in this court had been presented properly to the trial court no error would have been committed in instructing the jury as it did, or in admitting the "similar offense" evidence for the consideration of the jury.
The judgment is affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE McWILLIAMS, MR. JUSTICE HODGES and MR. JUSTICE KELLEY concur.