Pasch v. People
| Decision Date | 11 September 1922 |
| Docket Number | 10395. |
| Citation | 72 Colo. 92,209 P. 639 |
| Parties | PASCH v. PEOPLE. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Oct. 2, 1922.
Department 2.
Error to District Court, Routt County; Gilbert A. Walker, Judge.
Chris Pasch was convicted of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquors, and brings error, and applies for supersedeas.
Supersedeas denied, and judgment affirmed.
Joseph K. Bozard and C. R. Monson, both of Steamboat Springs, for plaintiff in error.
Victor E. Keyes, Atty. Gen., and Charles R. Conlee, Asst. Atty Gen., for the People.
Plaintiff in error applies for a supersedeas on a judgment of conviction in a case in which he was charged with the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor. From the record it appears that a federal prohibition agent entered the pool room of plaintiff in error, who is hereinafter called defendant, and there found what he afterwards testified was whisky. On a hearing before a justice of the peace, an order was entered for the return of this liquor. It appears however, that the sheriff was present on that occasion, and took and carried away this bottle of whisky. On the date set for the trial in the district court, the defendant in the meantime having been indicted, a motion was filed for an order directing the return of the whisky to the defendant. This motion was denied, and the bottle of whisky was put in evidence over objections of defendant's attorneys. It is not disputed that the liquor was found in a room adjoining defendant's pool room, which room was used for the sale of soft drinks.
The first error assigned is that the court erred in denying a motion for the return of the liquor. Counsel assert that since 1914 the decisions hold that property illegally taken and in possession of public officers will be ordered returned, and the evidence suppressed when an application is made before the trial. If that be a true statement of the law, which we do not concede, it nevertheless does not apply in this case. Section 7 of chapter 141, Laws of 1919, the statute under which the defendant was prosecuted, provides that there shall be no property interests in intoxicating liquors. Even under the federal cases cited by counsel, there was, therefore, no right to a return of this liquor. For the same reason its admission in evidence was not error.
It is further urged that the seizure of the whisky was unauthorized, because Hunt, who seized it, was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Fahn
...599, 212 P. 372; Venable v. State, 156 Ark. 564, 246 S.W. 860; People v. Mayen, 188 Cal. 237, 24 A.L.R. 1383, 205 P. 435; Pasch v. People, 72 Colo. 92, 209 P. 639; State v. Magnano, 97 Conn. 543, 117 A. 550; State v. Chuchola, 32 Del. 133, 120 A. 212; Kennemer v. State, 154 Ga. 139, 113 S.E......
-
Commonwealth v. Schwartz
...Rosanski v. State (Ohio), supra; Allred v. State (Ala.), 87 So. 842; State v. Simmons, 183 N.C. 684, 110 S.E. 591; Pasch v. People (Colo.), 72 Colo. 92, 209 P. 639; State v. Finsky (Wis.), 176 Wis. 481, 187 N.W. State v. Pauley, (N. D.), 49 N.D. 488, 192 N.W. 91; State v. Chuchola (Del.), 3......
-
People v. Kilpatrick
...liquor, the condition mentioned was terminated. In sustaining defendants' motion the trial court cited as authority therefor Pasch v. People, 209 P. 639, 72 Colo. 92. In that case we held the statute in question a answer to the claim of plaintiff in error that on motion he was entitled to h......