Drott v. People
| Decision Date | 01 May 1922 |
| Docket Number | 10314. |
| Citation | 206 P. 797,71 Colo. 383 |
| Parties | DROTT v. PEOPLE. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Department 1.
Error to District Court, Montrose County; Thomas J. Black, Judge.
John Drott was convicted of burglary and larceny, and he brings error.
Reversed.
Moynihan Hughes, Knous & Fauber, of Montrose, for plaintiff in error.
The plaintiff in error was convicted under both counts of an information charging him, first, with burglary, and, second with grand larceny. The information charged that these offenses were committed on the 29th day of November, 1917. The information was filed on the 22d day of November, 1920. The conviction under the second count was of larceny of goods of the value of $17.60. The offense was therefore a misdemeanor.
For the plaintiff in error it is contended that, more than 18 months having elapsed after the time at which the offense of larceny charged in the second count was committed, the case was barred by section 1949, R. S. 1908, which requires prosecution for a misdemeanor to begin within 18 months from the time of the committing of the offense. The language of the statute is perfectly clear, and, although the offense charged was grand larceny, that does not prevent the operation of the bar of the statute. To prevent the operation of the bar by charging a crime of a higher grade no within the bar would nullify the statute. The prosecution being barred, the conviction on the second count was void. Hammock v. State, 116 Ga. 595, 43 S.E. 47; Peopel v. Di Pasquale, 161 A.D. 196, 146 N.Y.S. 523; People v. Picetti, 124 Cal. 361, 57 P. 156.
It is further contended that the conviction under the first court should be set aside because of the admission of improper evidence over the objection of the defendant. It appears that, on a search of defendant's premises, under authority of a search warrant, several small tools were found, a few of which were identified as having been in the house of the prosecuting witness at the time of the supposed burglary. There was also found a saddle and a wagon box, and identified by the prosecuting witness as his property although there was no evidence as to when or from what place the saddle and wagon box were taken from his possession. There was an extensive examination of witnesses upon the question of ownership and identification, and upon the destruction of the wagon box by fire. The court instructed the jury that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Turner
...(Padie v. State, 557 P.2d 1138, 1140 [Alaska 1976]; State v. King, 140 W.Va. 362, 368, 84 S.E.2d 313, 316 [1954]; Drott v. People, 71 Colo. 383, 384, 206 P. 797, 798 [1922]; Askins v. United States, 251 F.2d 909, 911 [D.C.Cir.1958]). It is true that there existed some New York lower court d......
-
State v. King
...Tex.Cr.R. 22, 24 S.W. 292; Spears v. State, 26 Ala.App. 376, 160 So. 727; Presnal v. State, 23 Ala.App. 578, 129 So. 480; Drott v. People, 71 Colo. 383, 206 P. 797; Perry v. State, 103 Fla. 580, 137 So. 798; Blackmon v. State, 88 Fla. 188, 101 So. 319; McKinney v. State, 96 Tex.Cr.R. 342, 2......
-
Askins v. United States
...statutes make this quite clear. Letcher v. State, 159 Ala. 59, 48 So. 805; People v. Myers, 39 Cal.App. 244, 178 P. 965; Drott v. People, 71 Colo. 383, 206 P. 797; Mitchell v. State, 157 Fla. 121, 25 So.2d 73;2 Perry v. State, 103 Fla. 580, 137 So. 798; Blackmon v. State, 88 Fla. 188, 101 S......
-
Cane v. State
...v. State, Alaska Supr., 557 P.2d 1138 (1976); People v. Rose, Cal.Ct.App., 28 Cal.App.3d 415, 104 Cal.Rptr. 702 (1972); Drott v. People, 71 Colo. 383, 206 P. 797 (1922); Holloway v. State, Fla.Ct.App., 362 So.2d 333 (1978); People v. Burt, Mich.Supr., 16 N.W. 378 (1883); State v. Civella, M......