Frink v. People, 14410.
| Decision Date | 17 October 1938 |
| Docket Number | 14410. |
| Citation | 83 P.2d 774,103 Colo. 172 |
| Parties | FRINK v. PEOPLE. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Error to District Court, Alamosa County; John I. Palmer, Judge.
C. C Frink was convicted of larceny of an unbranded colt, and he brings error, and applies for a supersedeas.
Judgment affirmed as to guilt, but reversed and remanded as to sentence.
J. H. Thomas, of Antonito, for plaintiff in error.
Byron G. Rogers, Atty. Gen., and Henry E. Lutz, Asst. Atty. Gen for the People.
Plaintiff in error, Frink, was found guilty of larceny of an unbranded colt, upon which the jury placed a valuation of $5, and sentenced to serve a period of from two to four years in the penitentiary. He was informed against jointly with one Calkins, who never was apprehended. Reversal is sought on an application for a supersedeas.
It was charged that the plaintiff in error 'on or about the 16th day of January, A. D. 1938, at the said county of Alamosa and state of Colorado, did then and there unlawfully and feloniously steal, take, drive and carry away one horse to-wit: one bay mare colt, unbranded, of a value of $20.00 of the personal property goods and chattels of one W. W. Andrews, and thereby did then and there unlawfully and feloniously deprive the said W. W. Andrews, the owner thereof, of the immediate possession of said horse, contrary,' etc.
It will be conceded that larceny of livestock under either section 33, chapter 160, volume 4, '35 C.S.A., C.L. § 3149, or section 93 of chapter 48, volume 2, '35 C.S.A., C.L. § 6728, is a felony, subjecting anyone convicted thereof to sentence to the penitentiary; that for the purpose of prosecution under either, they are in pari materia, and no allegation and proof of value is necessary. Kollenberger v. People, 9 Colo. 233, 11 P. 101.
However it does not follow that these provisions are exclusive of the general larceny statute (section 85, chapter 48, volume 2, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Couch, 24870
...proper discretional function of the prosecutor to elect to proceed under the felony rather than the misdemeanor statute. Frink v. People, 103 Colo. 172, 83 P.2d 774. See also, People v. McKenzie, 169 Colo. 521, 458 P.2d Appellant's next contention is that he was denied his constitutional ri......
-
People v. James
...Colo. 521, 458 P.2d 232; Godfrey, Jr. v. People,168 Colo. 299, 451 P.2d 291; McGee v. People, 160 Colo. 46, 413 P.2d 901; Frink v. People, 103 Colo. 172, 83 P.2d 774. In such a situation it is a proper function of the prosecutor to determine under which of the statutes he wishes to prosecut......
-
Hucal v. People, 24228
...a general criminal statute, but rather allows the single criminal transaction to be prosecuted under either statute, Frink v. People, 103 Colo. 172, 83 P.2d 774 (1938); Kollenberger v. People, 9 Colo. 233, 11 P. 101 (1886); See also 2 Sutherland, Statutory Construction § 5204 (3rd Judgment ......
-
Town of Morrison v. Burke, 14395.
... ... [84 P.2d 463] ... The case of Ostling v. People ex rel., 57 Colo. 22, ... 140 P. 173, relied on by the town, is not in point, because ... [103 ... ...