Collins v. People
| Decision Date | 08 November 1920 |
| Docket Number | 9939. |
| Citation | 195 P. 525,69 Colo. 353 |
| Parties | COLLINS v. PEOPLE. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Jan. 10, 1921.
Department 3.
Error to District Court, El Paso County; Arthur Cornforth, Judge.
Ernest Collins was convicted of larceny, and he brings error, and applied for a supersedeas.
Supersedeas denied, and judgment affirmed.
Samuel H. Kinsley, of Colorado Springs, for plaintiff in error.
Victor E. Keyes, Atty. Gen., and Chas. H. Sherrick, Asst. Atty. Gen (T. C. Turner, of Colorado Springs, of counsel), for the People.
The plaintiff in error, defendant below, was convicted of larceny. He has sued out a writ of error, and the cause is before us upon his application for a supersedeas.
The information to which the defendant pleaded and upon which the trial was begun charged the defendant with the larceny of 'the personal goods and chattels of Mrs. C. C. Hamlin, to wit, three saddles.'
At the trial, the first witness for the people was Mrs. C. C Hamlin, the person whose property was alleged to have been stolen. She testified that four saddles were stolen from a garage, one belonging to Mrs. Gunnell, one to Mr. Hamlin, one to 'Dr. Swan or his daughter,' and the fourth to herself. Two of the saddles were in the courtroom as exhibits, and the witness identified one as the property of Mrs. Gunnell and the other as the property of Mr. Hamlin. Thereupon counsel for the people moved to amend the information so as to charge larceny of only one saddle, and lay the ownership of the same in C. C. Hamlin. The motion was granted, over the objections of the defendant and the information was accordingly amended.
One of the questions presented by the record for our determination is whether the information, in respect to the allegation of ownership of the property, could lawfully be amended, at the time and in the manner it was permitted by the trial court to be amended.
As above noted, the information was amended after the trial had begun, and after the first witness had given her testimony. If the amendment was one of substance, and not merely of form, it was made too late. Amendments of informations in matters of substance cannot be made at the trial, but amendments in matters of form are allowable. 22 Cyc. 437; 14 R.C.L. 193,§ 38; 12 Standard Enc. Proc. 556.
The amendment in question did not change the offense. The amended information charged the same offense as the original information. In State v. Bell, 65 N.C. 313, it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dill v. People
... ... appearing that the issue was one which need not be raised by ... special plea, it was within the court's discretion to ... permit the filing of the answer thereto after the jury was ... sworn, particularly where the plea was withheld until the ... beginning of the trial. Collins v. People, 69 Colo ... 353, 195 P. 525 ... 4. It ... is contended that the only evidence which tends to support ... the charge of cheating or swindling is that of an unfulfilled ... promise by Associated Industries to make a loan to the ... cemetery association. There was such a ... ...
-
Maraggos v. People
...of the building and does not go to the essence of either charge. Such an amendment is one of form rather than substance. Collins v. People, 69 Colo. 353, 195 P. 525. It may be permitted any time prior to verdict. Crim.P. 7(e); Romero v. People, 134 Colo. 342, 304 P.2d We find no merit in th......
-
Diebold v. People
...cnanging the names or description of the owner are of form and not substance. The amendment was legally permissible. Collins v. People, 69 Colo. 353, 195 P. 525. Nor is it mandatory that ownership be proven when it is alleged that the property of another was unlawfully taken while in the la......
-
State v. Jensen
... ... v. Ellis, 119 Mo. 437, 24 S.W. 1017; Maddox ... v. State, 14 Tex. Ct. App. 447; Hughes v ... State, 74 Miss. 368, 20 So. 838; People v ... Hanselman, 76 Cal. 460, 18 P. 425, 9 Am. St. Rep ... 238. While the amendment was one of substance it did not ... change the nature of the ... requiring arraignment and new plea. State v ... Rickenberg, 58 Utah 270, 198 P. 767; ... Collins v. People, 69 Colo. 353, 195 P ... 525; Davis v. State, 4 Okla. Crim. 508, 113 ... P. 220; State v. Walton, 255 Mo. 232, 164 ... S.W. 211; People ... ...
-
Amending Indictments in Colorado: Rule 6.8, Colo. R. Crim. P
...66. Albritton v. People, 157 Colo. 518, 403 P.2d 772 (1965). 67. Diebold v. People, 175 Colo. 96, 485 P.2d 900 (1971); Collins v. People, 69 Colo. 353, 195 P. 525 (1921). The court in People v. Marion, 182 Colo. 435, 514 P.2d 327 (1973), upheld the trial court's order permitting an amendmen......