Arnett v. People, 12750.
| Decision Date | 25 April 1932 |
| Docket Number | 12750. |
| Citation | 11 P.2d 806,91 Colo. 56 |
| Parties | ARNETT et al. v. PEOPLE. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied May 31, 1932.
In Department.
Error to District Court, Routt County; Charles E. Herrick, Judge.
Robert A. Arnett and another were convicted for obtaining money by means of the confidence game, and they bring error.
Affirmed.
Joseph K. Bozard, of Steamboat Springs, and J. F. Meador, of Craig for plaintiffs in error.
John S Underwood, Former Atty. Gen., E. J. Plunkett, Asst. Atty Gen., Clarence L. Ireland, Atty. Gen., and Wallace S. Porth Asst. Atty. Gen., for the People.
Robert and Walter Arnett, brothers, were tried, convicted, and sentenced in the district court of Routt county for obtaining money by means of the confidence game. They here seek to review this judgment, contending that (1) the information, and (2) the evidence introduced thereunder are insufficient to support the verdict.
The information charges: 'That Robert A. Arnett and Walter G. Arnett late of the County of Routt and State of Colorado, on or about the 19th day of December in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and 28 at and within the County and State aforesaid did then and there unlawfully and feloniously obtain and procure from one W. F. Cross the sum of Four hundred and nine dollars ($409.) in lawful money of the United States by means and by use of the confidence game. * * *'
1. It is claimed that this information is insufficient because it fails to allege ownership of the money obtained. A similar question was presented to this court and determined January 25, 1932, Albert et al. v. People, 90 Colo. 219, 7 P.2d 822. Therein, after quoting various applicable statutes and numerous Colorado cases, we held: '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.' This language is equally applicable and conclusive here.
2. The record discloses that defendants, in order to obtain a loan of $650 from one Cross, falsely represented that they were the owners of certain cattle; that Cross, believing said false representations to be true, gave to defendants his three checks aggregating $648.50, taking as security therefor defendants' note and chattel mortgage on said cattle and other personal property. The checks...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Updike v. People
...cited in paragraph 1 of that opinion have no application to the situation disclosed by the record in the present case. Arnett et al. v. People, 91 Colo. 56, 11 P.2d 806, is wholly unlike the case at bar. There, according to record, the charge was that the defendants obtained from W. F. Cros......
-
Digiallonardo v. People, s. 24116
...as the victim of the accused, the money, * * * belonging to the victim, by means of confidence game.' In the case of Arnett v. People, 91 Colo. 56, 11 P.2d 806 (1932), this court has held that it is not necessary to allege ownership of the money or property obtained from the victim. It is t......
-
O'Brien v. State
... ... Colorado in the opinion in the case of Arnett et al. v ... People, 91 Colo. 56, 11 P.2d 806. There, the accused ... made some false ... ...
-
Critchfield v. People, 12399.
... ... 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 to the form ... ...