Crowley v. People
| Decision Date | 09 October 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 16462,16462 |
| Parties | CROWLEY v. PEOPLE. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Norman E. Cobb, Denver, for plaintiff in error.
John W. Metzger, Atty. Gen., Allen Moore, Deputy Atty. Gen., Donald C. McKinlay, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.
On the 8th day of December, 1949, an information was filed in a justice of the peace court in Arapahoe county, Colorado, in which one James A. Rulla was named defendant. The charge contained in said information was that, defendant, on or about December 6, 1949, did 'unlawfully torture, torment, unnecessarily and cruelly beat, needlessly mutilate and kill one dog, the property of Lila Rulla.' December 9, 1949, defendant Rulla was found guilty by said justice of the peace and sentenced to imprisonment in the county jail for one year and assessed a fine of $225.00 plus costs.
On the day following the entry of judgment and sentence an appeal bond was filed by defendant, as required by statute, and he was released from custody. On the day following his release, said James A. Rulla was found dead in an automobile. On December 14, 1949, the attorney for the said Rulla, whose services had been secured to perfect an appeal, docketed the cause in the county court and filed his motion to dismiss the action, setting forth the above judgment of the justice of the peace and alleging that an appeal was prosecuted from said judgment by the filing of a bond which was approved by the said justice of the peace. In the motion to dismiss, the fact of the death of defendant was set out, followed by a prayer that the cause be dismissed. The county court denied this motion and directed the issuance of a writ of procedendo.
Plaintiff in error is the administrator of the estate of the said James A. Rulla, and, having been authorized and directed so to do by the probate court in which settlement of the estate of Rulla was pending, seeks reversal of the judgment.
The Attorney General agrees with plaintiff in error that the county court erred in not granting the motion to dismiss. The law applicable to the admitted facts was stated by our court in Overland Cotton Mill Co. v. People, 32 Colo. 263, 75 P. 924, 925, as follows ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hoxsie
...140 P.2d 828 (1943); People v. Valdez, 911 P.2d 703 (Colo.App.1996); People v. Lipira, 621 P.2d 1389 (Colo.App.1980); Crowley v. People, 122 Colo. 466, 223 P.2d 387 (1950); Howell v. United States, 455 A.2d 1371 (D.C.App.1983) (citing Clark, 260 N.W.2d 370); State v. Stotter, 67 Idaho 210, ......
-
People v. Daly
...at *4 (1879), clearly endorsed the doctrine of abatement ab initio. The supreme court followed Overland in Crowley v. People, 122 Colo. 466, 468, 223 P.2d 387, 387–88 (1950). The supreme court concluded that the defendant's death, “following the perfection of his appeal to the county court ......
-
State v. Blake
...v. State (Alaska 1967), 423 P.2d 282.California: People v. Dail (1943), 22 Cal.2d 642, 140 P.2d 828.Colorado: Crowley v. People (1950), 122 Colo. 466, 223 P.2d 387.Florida: Bagley v. State (Fla.App.1960), 122 So.2d 789.Hawaii: State v. Gomes (1976), 57 Haw. 271, 554 P.2d 235.Idaho: State v.......
-
People v. Griffin
...can operate has ceased to exist.” Id., 75 P. at 925. ¶ 8 Fifty years later, we briefly addressed the doctrine in Crowley v. People, 122 Colo. 466, 468, 223 P.2d 387, 388 (1950). There, the defendant's case originated in a justice of the peace court, and the defendant died after filing a dir......