Colacino v. People

• Decision Date: 03 January 1927
• Docket Number: 11587.
• Citation: 80 Colo. 417,252 P. 350
• Parties: COLACINO v. PEOPLE.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

252 P. 350

80 Colo. 417

COLACINO v. PEOPLE.

No. 11587.

Supreme Court of Colorado

January 3, 1927

Error to District Court, Las Animas County; A. C. McChesney, Judge.

Joe Colacino was convicted of possessing intoxicating liquors for personal use, and he brings error.

Affirmed.

Frank H. Hall, of Trinidad, for plaintiff in error.

William L. Boatright, Atty. Gen., and Jean S Breitenstein, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the People.

WHITFORD J.

The defendant was convicted of having in his possession for personal use intoxicating liquors, and prosecutes this writ of error for relief from the consequences of that judgment.

Counsel's contention that the Legislature has provided no penalty for the offense charged in the information is foreclosed by the case of McConnell v. People, 73 Colo. 99, 213 P. 674.

Counsel further contends that the provision of section 3701, C. L 1921, under which defendant was convicted, is void, because beyond the purview of article 22 of the state Constitution. Article 22 prohibits the manufacture, importation, or possession of intoxicating liquors for sale or gift, and therefore counsel argues that the Legislature is without power to prohibit possession of intoxicating liquors for personal use. The answer to this contention is simple and uninvolved. The state Constitution is not a grant of legislative power, and it is elementary that, in the absence of the grants of power to the United States Constitution and the express inhibitions and limitations in the state Constitution, the legislative power of the state is as all embracing and as supreme as the legislative power of the British Parliament. So, if the possession of intoxicating liquors for personal use is not expressly forbidden by article 22, the Legislature may in its wisdom, in the exercise of its unrestricted legislative power with respect to the possession of intoxicating liquors, enact just such a provision as is found in section 3701. Gavin v. People, 79 Colo. 189, 244 P. 912.

Counsel says that the defendant had an inherent and inalienable right to own and keep in his possession intoxicating liquors for personal use, and therefore insists that the statute is unconstitutional. This court has held otherwise in People v. Sandy, 70 Colo. 558, 203 P. 671 wherein we quote with approval from Crane v. Campbell, 245 U.S. 304, 38 S.Ct. 98, 62 L.Ed. 304:

'We further think it clearly follows from our numerous decisions upholding prohibition legislation that the right to hold intoxicating liquors for personal use is not one of those fundamental privileges of a citizen of the United States which no state can abridge.'

It is contended that the court erred in overruling the motion of defendant to quash the panel and requiring him to go...