In Damas v. People, 62 Colo. 418, 163 Pac. 289, it was held that parol evidence of a confession, as distinguished from a written confession, which is itself received as evidence, is circumstantial in its nature.
Summary of this case from Martz v. PeopleDecided April 6, 1992
SENTENCE AFFIRMED
In Damas v. People, 62 Colo. 418, 163 Pac. 289, it was held that parol evidence of a confession, as distinguished from a written confession, which is itself received as evidence, is circumstantial in its nature.
Summary of this case from Martz v. PeopleIn Damas v. People, 62 Colo. 418, 163 Pac. 289, the defendant was charged with, and convicted of, murder of the first degree, with the death penalty fixed.
Summary of this case from Ives v. PeopleFull title:PEOPLE v. DAMAS (MARIO)
Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Date published: Apr 6, 1992
The dangers inherent in the use of such evidence are well recognized by courts and text writers. ( People v.…
People v. KoenigIn other jurisdictions evidence of oral confessions is direct and not circumstantial evidence. (See 40 A.L.R.…