Menton v. Johns, 20391
| Decision Date | 24 December 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 20391,20391 |
| Citation | 151 Colo. 276,377 P.2d 104 |
| Parties | Clarence MENTON, Petitioner, v. Judge Mitchel B. JOHNS and The District Court of the City and County of Denver, Respondents. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Sidney H. Tellis, Denver, for petitioner.
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Bert M. Keating, Dist. Atty., Gregory A. Mueller, Asst. Dist. Atty., David C. Little, Deputy Dist. Atty., Second Judicial Dist., for respondents.
Menton, petitioner here, was a defendant in the district court, where he was charged with the crimes of 'assault to rob and conspiracy to commit robbery.'
On February 6, 1962, the case against Menton came on for trial before the Hon. Mitchel Johns, one of the judges of said court. The parties announced themselves ready for trial, a jury of twelve was selected and sworn. The People presented their evidence and rested, whereupon Menton moved for a directed verdict of 'not guilty.' This motion was denied; whereupon Menton presented his defense and rested, and again moved for a directed verdict of not guilty or for an order of dismissal. The court then entered the following order:
'At the conclusion of defendant's evidence, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss granted, Court ordered defendant be released and the case dismissed.'
In the record before us appears the following order entered February 8, 1962:
'On D.A.'s Motion, Court orders Motion for New Trial dispensed with if same were filed it would be denied.'
On April 25, 1962, the district attorney filed in the case a document labeled: 'MoTION FOR NEW TRIAL, AND PETITION TO RECONSIDER COURT'S RULING DISPENSING WITH NEW TRIAL.'
On May 4, 1962, this motion and petition was heard and a new trial ordered.
Menton was again arrested on an alias capias in the same case in which he had been tried and the matter continued to July 20, 1962, for setting of a trial date.
On July 18, 1962, Menton filed his petition in this court setting forth the foregoing facts and praying for a writ of prohibition against the district court, prohibiting further proceedings against him. Rule to Show Cause was issued and on August 6, 1962, an 'ANSWER TO RULE TO SHOW CAUSE' was filed in behalf of respondents.
The sum and substance of respondents' answer is that the trial court sustained defendant's motion for dismissal or directed verdict on the mistaken belief that the People had failed to prove that the alleged offense had been committed in the City and County of Denver, when in truth and in fact two witnesses had testified to said fact; therefore the court, in ordering the case dismissed, had:
'* * * committed error in law which prejudiced the People of the State of Colorado * * *.'
We find nothing in the law that even remotely santions this new, novel and wholly unwarranted procedure of the district attorney and the district court.
We point out that the Constitution of Colorado, Article II, Section 18, in rather clear language, provides that:
'* * * nor shall any person be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense. * * *'
Menton was placed in jeopardy when the jury was sworn:
'* * * The general rule established by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Serravo
...significant to the double jeopardy issue. See, e.g., Krutka v. Spinuzzi [153 Colo. 115, 384 P.2d 928 (1963) ]; Menton v. Johns, [151 Colo. 276, 377 P.2d 104 (1962) ]; Castner v. People, 67 Colo. 327, 184 P. 387 (1919); Roland v. People, 23 Colo. 283, 47 P. 269 (1896). A retrial on a crimina......
-
People v. Quintana
...Krutka v. Spinuzzi, 153 Colo. 115, 384 P.2d 928 (1963); see People v. Terry, 189 Colo. 177, 538 P.2d 466 (1975); Menton v. Johns, 151 Colo. 276, 377 P.2d 104 (1962). This court decided People v. Paulsen, supra, after the Supreme Court's opinion in United States v. Scott, supra. In Paulsen w......
-
Maes v. District Court In and For City and County of Denver
...has pleaded, and a jury has been impaneled and sworn to try the cause. Krutka v. Spinuzzi, 153 Colo. 115, 384 P.2d 928; Menton v. Johns, 151 Colo. 276, 377 P.2d 104; Markiewicz v. Black, 138 Colo. 128, 330 P.2d 539. Here, all of the foregoing tests of jeopardy exist. Additionally, both the ......
-
E. F. Hutton and Co., Inc. v. Anderson
...v. District Court, 180 Colo. 391, 506 P.2d 131 (1973); Maes v. District Court, 180 Colo. 169, 503 P.2d 621 (1972); Menton v. Johns, 151 Colo. 276, 377 P.2d 104 (1962); Markiewicz v. Black, 138 Colo. 128, 330 P.2d 539 (1958). The present case is not a criminal action, and defendant was not b......
-
Section 18 CRIMES - EVIDENCE AGAINST ONE'S SELF-JEOPARDY.
...962 (1918). This section of the constitution provides that no person may be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense. Menton v. Johns, 151 Colo. 276, 377 P.2d 104 (1962); Krutka v. Spinuzzi, 153 Colo. 115, 384 P.2d 928 (1963); Casias v. People, 160 Colo. 152, 415 P.2d 344, cert. denied, 3......