Brooks v. People

Decision Date13 June 1890
Citation24 P. 553,14 Colo. 413
PartiesBROOKS et al. v. PEOPLE.
CourtColorado Supreme Court

Error to criminal court, Pueblo county.

The record in this case shows that the plaintiffs in error were jointly indicted in the criminal court of Pueblo county for conspiracy to defraud the Washington Life Insurance Company and that to such indictment they each entered a plea of guilty; that upon such plea the court sentenced the defendants to imprisonment in the state penitentiary for a term of two years each, which sentence they are now undergoing. The errors assigned all go to the jurisdiction of the court, upon such plea of guilty, to sentence to imprisonment in the penitentiary.

Charles & Smith, for plaintiffs in error.

S.W. Jones, Atty. Gen., and H. Riddell, for the People.

HAYT J., ( after stating the facts as above.)

The statute under which the indictment in this case is framed reads as follows: 'If any two or more persons shall conspire or agree, falsely and maliciously, to charge or indict, or cause or procure to be charged or indicted, any person for any criminal offense, or shall agree, conspire, or co-operate to do, or to aid in doing, any other unlawful act each of the persons so offending shall on conviction be fined in any sum not exceeding one thousand dollars, and imprisoned not less than three months nor exceeding two years.' Section 811, Gen. St. 1883. In this state, two places are resorted to for the confinement of offenders against the state laws, to-wit, the state penitentiary, and the county jail of the proper county. The penitentiary has long been recognized as the proper place for the incarceration of those convicted of the graver offenses only, while the county jails have been utilized for the confinement of those convicted of minor offenses, and confinement in the penitentiary has always been regarded as more severe than confinement in a county jail, on account of the disgrace and reproach attached to confinement in an institution thus set apart as a place for the incarceration of the more depraved and infamous classes of offenders; and under our constitution the test by which to determine whether an offense less than capital shall be deemed a felony or a misdemeanor is made to depend upon whether the same is punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary or in the county jail. And by statute the consequences resulting from a conviction of a felony are made much more serious than those arising from a conviction of a misdemeanor. Article 18, § 4, Const.; sections 943, 944, Gen St. The number of peremptory challenges to which a defendant may be entitled in a given case is also made to depend upon whether the charge preferred against him amounts to a felony, or is a misdemeanor only. It will thus be seen that the distinction between the two grades of offenses is important, for many reasons. It will be noticed that the statute upon which this prosecution is based is silent in reference to the place of confinement; and, unless some other act can be found making the offense a felony, it is clear that a conviction will only authorize a confinement in that institution considered the less penal, to-wit, the county jail. This is in accordance with a fundamental rule governing the construction of criminal statutes, which requires that, in case the statute admits equally of two constructions, that which is the more favorable to the defendant is to be preferred; and when the statute is silent as to the place of imprisonment, there being county jails for persons convicted of misdemeanors, and a penitentiary for those guilty of higher crimes, the former, rendering the punishment less severe, must be selected. Horner v. State, 1 Or. 269; St. Louis v. Goebel, 32 Mo. 295; End. Interp. St. 456.

In imposing the sentence in the case at bar, the criminal court no doubt, had in mind the following provision, to be found in section 2594 of the General Statutes of this state: 'All persons who shall hereafter be convicted of any crime under the laws of this state, or have been heretofore convicted under the laws of this state, or of the territory of Colorado, where the punishment is imprisonment for a period of time exceeding six months, shall be imprisoned in the penitentiary; and all courts in which such conviction shall be had, shall give judgment accordingly.' An examination of our statutes will show that many offenses may fall within the terms of the above provision; for, while it is undoubtedly true that the place of confinement, whether in the penitentiary or the county jail, is usually specified in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 cases
  • People v. Rodriguez
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • May 31, 2005
    ...state penitentiary given that is was known as the place for the most "depraved and infamous classes of offenders." Brooks v. People, 14 Colo. 413, 414, 24 P. 553, 553 (1890). Because of the stigma attached to a felony charge and sentence to the state penitentiary, the framers retained the "......
  • People v. Enlow
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • April 22, 1957
    ...the statutes of this state has a well-definied meaning, as is disclosed by Article XVIII, Section 4, of the Constitution. Brooks v. People, 14 Colo. 413, 24 P. 553; In re Pratt, 19 Colo. 138, 34 P. 680; Ritchey v. People, 23 Colo. 314, 47 P. 272, 384; Williams v. People, 26 Colo. 272, 57 P.......
  • O'Connor v. St. Louis Transit Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • October 17, 1906
    ...title. Cooley's Const. Lim., 141; St. Louis v. Tiefel, 42 Mo. 590; Dorsey's Appeal, 72 Pa. St. 192; In re Green, 14 Colo. 401; Brooks v. People, 14 Colo. 413. (2) In this question the court must bear in mind that the first section of the act of February 25, 1901, has no bearing upon the que......
  • Creekmore v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • October 17, 1916
    ... ... The ... plaintiff in error cites, as to the same effect, Snyder ... v. State, 151 Ind. 553, 52 N.E. 152; Early v ... People, 117 Ill.App. 608; State v. Root, 5 N.D ... 487, 67 N.W. 590, 57 Am.St.Rep. 568; In re Nickell, ... 47 Kan. 734, 28 P. 1076, 27 Am.St.Rep ... 121, 123, a contempt case; Cheaney v. State, 36 Ark ... 74; State v. McNeill, 75 N.C. 15; Horner v ... State, 1 Or. 267; Brooks v. People, 14 Colo ... 413, 24 P. 553, and Ex parte Cain, 20 Okl. 125, 93 P. 974, ... misdemeanors. Nor are we oblivious of the fact that the ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT