McIntosh v. City and County of Denver, 19255
| Decision Date | 29 August 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 19255,19255 |
| Citation | 144 Colo. 59,355 P.2d 97 |
| Parties | Geraldine M. McINTOSH, Plaintiff in Error, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Rollie R. Rogers, Lew E. McClain, Francis W. Brown, Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Donald E. Kelley, James P. McGruder, Denver, for defendant in error.
Plaintiff in error, to whom we will refer as Geraldine, was brought before the municipal court of the City and County of Denver on a complaint, or summons, which purported to charge violation by her of several ordinances of the city. She denied her guilt and upon trial was found guilty on those specifications in the complaint purporting to accuse her of carrying concealed weapons, and of prostitution. She appealed to the Superior Court where she pleaded guilty to the charge relating to the concealed weapon. She was found guilty of prostitution and the penalty imposed by each offense was a fine of $300 and ninety days in jail.
No point is urged in this cause concerning prostitution and the penalty imposed for which the action was commenced nor concerning the jurisdiction of the court to hear and determine the cause on its merits. Neither in the municipal court nor in the Superior Court on appeal was any question raised concerning the sufficiency of the complaint to properly charge violation of the particular ordinances to which reference is made therein.
The summons and complaint served upon Geraldine directed her 'to appear before this court [municipal court] at the time and place shown below to answer charges of violations indicated below, of the Revised Municipal Code, which occurred in the City and County of Denver, Colorado at 2652 Lafayette St. on or about 5-17-59 (Time) 12:15 A.M.' The names of two witnesses or complainants appear on the complaint.
The reference in the complaint to the ordinances allegedly violated by Geraldine appears in a space provided in the printed form as follows:
Sec. No. Relating To
823-5-1 Prostitution
846-1-1 Concealed weapons
The complaint concludes with the following:
'The above complainant knows or believes and so alleged that the above named defendant violated the above sections of the Revised Municipal Code of the City and County of Denver, and further certifies that a copy of this summons and complaint was duly served upon the above named defendant as provided by law.'
It is argued for reversal of the judgment that the complaint is fatally defective in that it did not adequately inform Geraldine of the specific charge made against her. Her counsel cite the case of Scott v. City and County of Denver, 125 Colo. 68, 241 P.2d 857, as authority for this argument.
The council of the City and County of Denver has '* * * power to legislate upon, provide, regulate, conduct and control * * * the creation of municipal courts, * * * the imposition, enforcement and collection of fines and penalties for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Woolverton v. City and County of Denver
...ordinance and failed even to comment on its validity from the standpoint now being considered. So also in McIntosh v. City and County of Denver, 144 Colo. ----, 355 P.2d 97, involving a municipal ordinance relating to prostitution, the Court affirmed a conviction thereunder and again failed......
-
Bradley v. People
...that its ruling on such an application will not be reversed except where there is a clear abuse of discretion. McIntosh v. City and County of Denver, 144 Colo. 59, 355 P.2d 97; Hawkins v. The People, 131 Colo. 281, 281 P.2d 156; Gearhart v. People, 113 Colo. 9, 154 P.2d Our review of the he......
-
Lucero v. People
...that its ruling on such an application will not be reversed except where there is a clear abuse of discretion. McIntosh v. City and County of Denver, 144 Colo. 59, 355 P.2d 97; Hawkins v. People, 131 Colo. 281, 281 P.2d 156; Gearhart v. People, 113 Colo. 9, 154 P.2d Another facet of this is......
-
Wiggins v. McAuliffe
...apprise a defendant of the offense charged against him. On August 29, 1960 this court announced its opinion in McIntosh v. City and County of Denver, 144 Colo. ----, 355 P.2d 97, in which it was held that reference to the number of an ordinance allegedly violated, coupled with a general des......