Moffitt v. People
Decision Date | 03 May 1915 |
Docket Number | 8137. |
Parties | MOFFITT et al. v. PEOPLE. |
Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Error to Montezuma County Court; John J. Downey, Judge.
Walter J. Moffitt and another were convicted of selling intoxicating liquor in anti-saloon territory, and they bring error. Affirmed.
H. M. Hogg, of Denver, for plaintiffs in error.
Fred Farrar, Atty. Gen., and Frank C. West, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the People.
Walter J. Moffitt and William Syrett were convicted in the county court of selling intoxicating liquor in anti-saloon territory in Montezuma county, and each sentenced to pay a fine of $200 and costs, and bring the case here for review. July 5, 1913 separate informations were filed against each defendant substantially as follows:
July 14th motion to quash the informations was filed, upon the grounds that they were ambiguous, uncertain, unintelligible, and duplicitous. July 17th motions to quash the informations were denied, and the cases were by agreement consolidated for the purpose of trial, and set for trial July 21st. July 21st the district attorney was permitted to amend by striking that portion of the informations included within the parentheses. Defendants then asked for additional time within which to file a motion to quash the informations as amended and such additional motions as they might be advised, which was denied.
The county clerk and recorder testified without objection as to the election for making precinct 8, in which the sales were charged, anti-saloon territory, giving the result of the election and the contents of the certificate of the board of canvassers. The sales were then proved as alleged, and the people rested. Defendants introduced no evidence denying the sales or that precinct 8 was not anti-saloon territory if the election making it such was valid. They offered to prove, and attempted to show, that some of the proceedings in connection with the election were irregular, and claimed that the territory embraced in precinct 8 was not subject to the provisions of the local option statute. The court allowed testimony to be introduced covering these matters, but later instructed the jury that they should not consider it. The assignments of error argued are:
(i) Misconduct of the trial judge in going into the jury room and communicating privately with the jury without the knowledge and out of the presence of the defendants or their attorneys.
(j) The giving and refusing of instructions to the jury.
1. The court committed no error in permitting the district attorney to amend the informations by striking the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Winter
...237; United States v. Standard Brewery, D.C., 260 F. 486, 487; State v. Li Fieri, 6 Boyce 597, 29 Del. 597, 102 A. 77; Moffitt v. People, 59 Colo. 406, 149 P. 104, 107; Hoskins v. Commonwealth, 171 Ky. 204, 188 S.W. 348; Barnett v. O'Connell, 279 App.Div. 449, 111 N.Y.S.2d 166, 167. In Holm......
-
Dill v. People
... ... 567, 26 Am.Rep. 690; Collins v. State, 99 Miss. 47, ... 54 So. 665, Ann.Cas. 1918C, 1256; State v. Murphy, ... 17 N.D. 48, 115 N.W. 84, 17 L.R.A. (N. S.) 609, 16 Ann.Cas ... In the ... opinion the court cites Holland v. People, 30 Colo ... 94, 69 P. 519 and Moffitt v. People, 59 Colo. 406, ... 149 P. 104, 107, cases relied on by the Attorney General. In ... neither of those cases was the situation comparable to this ... record. In the Holland review the entire jury came into court ... because of the illness of one of their number. The defendant ... and ... ...
-
State v. Schultz
... ... 32, 48 N.W. 314; Erickson v. Cass ... County, 11 N.D. 494, 92 N.W. 841; State v ... Bryan, 39 So. 929; State v. Davis, 2 Iowa 280; ... People v. McHaney, 13 Mich. 481; Louisiana v ... Pillsbury, 105 U.S. 278; Norfolk Beet Sugar Co. v ... State, 73 N.W. 69; Oxnard Beet Sugar Co. v ... ...
-
Howard v. People
... ... The court made a genereal finding of ... guilt as alleged; that is to say, it found that Howard ... committed the crime in both ways. The former clearly does not ... require a formal charge against the principal. The charge in ... the conjunctive was permissible. In Moffitt v ... People, 59 Colo. 406, 149 P. 104, we held that where, ... under a statute, the offense may be committed in different ... ways, it is proper to charge it in all possible ways, using ... the conjunctive where the statute is in the disjunctive. To ... the same effect, see Kingsbury v ... ...