Albert v. People, 12967.
| Docket Nº | 12967. |
| Citation | 90 Colo. 219, 7 P.2d 822 |
| Case Date | January 25, 1932 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Colorado |
In Department.
Error to District Court, Pueblo County; John H. Voorhees, Judge.
Charles Albert, alias Joseph Lewis Brownie, Mann Brewer, and Andrew Sando were convicted of aggravated robbery, and they bring error.
Affirmed.
A. T Stewart, of Pueblo, for plaintiffs in error.
Clarence L. Ireland, Atty. Gen., and Wallace S. Porth, Asst. Atty Gen., for the People.
Plaintiffs in error were convicted of aggravated robbery in the district court of Pueblo county and sentenced to the penitentiary. They seek a supersedeas and reversal claiming that the information is insufficient because it fails to allege ownership of the money taken from the complaining witness.
The information charges: 'That Charles Albert, alias Joseph Lewis Brownie, Mann Brewer, Andrew Sando and another person whose name is, to the District Attorney, unknown, on or about the 16th day of May, A. D. 1931, at the County of Pueblo State of Colorado, being then and there armed with dangerous weapons, to-wit: pistols loaded with gun-powder and leaden balls, then and there with intent, if resisted, to kill, main and wound one V. L. Hyatt, on the person of the said V. L Hyatt, did feloniously, violently and by force and intimidation make an assault and him the said V. L. Hyatt did then and there feloniously, violently and by force and intimidation put in bodily fear and danger of his life, and seven hundred twenty seven dollars ($727.00) in money, of the value of seven hundred twenty seven dollars ($727.00) from the person and against the will of the said V. L. Hyatt, then and there feloniously, violently and by force and intimidation did rob, steal, take and carry away. * * *'
Chapter 81, p. 307, Session Laws of 1931, provides:
Except as to punishment, this is a restatement of the provisions of section 6718, C. L. of 1921.
Section 7062, C. L. 1921, provides: 'Every indictment or accusation of the grand jury shall be deemed sufficiently technical and correct which states the offense in the terms and language of this code, or so plainly that the nature of the offense may be easily understood by the jury.'
Section 7071, C. L. 1921, provides: 'The offense charged in any information shall be stated in plain, concise language, without prolixity or unnecessary repetition.'
Section 7073, C. L. 1921, provides: 'All provisions of law applying to prosecutions upon indictments, * * * shall to the same extent and in the same manner as near as may be, apply to informations and to all prosecutions and proceedings thereon.'
Section 7103, C. L. 1921, provides: '* * * and no indictment or information shall be deemed insufficient, nor shall the trial, judgment or other proceedings thereon be reversed or affected by any defect which does not tend to prejudice the substantial rights of the defendant on the merits.'
The information substantially follows the terms of the statute, its language is plain, easily understood, and a prosecution thereunder cannot be held to have prejudiced the substantial rights of the plaintiffs in error.
In Cliff v. People, 84 Colo. 254, 269 P. 907, the defendant challenged the sufficiency of the information. We there stated at page 258 of 84 Colo. 269 P. 907, 910; ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wright v. People, 15842.
...the statute or so plainly that the nature of the crime may be readily and easily understood by the jury, is sufficient. Albert v. People, 90 Colo. 219, 7 P.2d 822; Helser v. People, 100 Colo. 371, 68 P.2d 543. The information in the instant case describes the offense in the language of the ......
-
Hampton v. People, 19203
...ownership may properly be laid in the person from whose physical possession the property was taken * * *.' See also Albert v. People, 90 Colo. 219, 7 P.2d [146 Colo. 575] Finally, Hampton contends that the trial court committed reversible error in denying his motion for a mistrial, which mo......
-
Critchfield v. People, 12399.
...In our decisions, we have given effect to the statutory command.' See Koontz v. People, 82 Colo. 589, 263 P. 19; Albert et al. v. People, 90 Colo. 219, 7 P.2d 822; Arnett v. People (Colo.) 11 P.2d 806. We also note that section 7068, C. L. 1921, provides that 'all exceptions which go merely......
-
McLean v. Jones, 12550.
...have disagreed with the court, but there was sufficient testimony to justify the conclusion as reached. The trial judge saw and heard [90 Colo. 219] the witnesses, and we shall not interfere with the judgment. We have considered all objections of the parties, but find no error in the record......