Peckham v. People
| Decision Date | 01 February 1904 |
| Citation | 75 P. 422,32 Colo. 140 |
| Parties | PECKHAM v. PEOPLE. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Error to District Court, Morgan County; Christian A. Bennett Judge.
Arthur M. Peckham was convicted of statutory rape, and he brings error. Affirmed.
H. E. Churchill and L. C. Stephenson, for plaintiff in error.
N. C Miller, Atty. Gen., and H. J. Hersey, for the People.
The information charges the defendant with the crime of rape upon one Anna Nelson, 'a female person under the age of eighteen years.' The defendant moved to quash the information upon the ground that the statute commonly known as the 'Age of Consent Law' is unconstitutional and void, and in his motion sets forth facts which he claims render the law unconstitutional. The district attorney did not answer the motion nor file demurrer thereto. The court after argument, overruled the motion. The jury found the defendant guilty as charged in the information, and the defendant asks that the judgment of conviction be reversed, first, because the court erred in overruling the motion to quash; second, because the court erred in giving and refusing certain instructions. The specific objections to the instructions will be considered in the opinion.
It is contended by the defendant that the effect of the failure of the district attorney to answer or demur to the motion to quash was an admission that the facts set forth in the motion were true; and it is further contended that the courts take judicial notice of the contents of the original journals, and that, when a law is attacked as being unconstitutional, the court should determine from an inspection of the journals whether the Constitution has been observed by the Legislature in the passage of the statute. Authorities are cited by counsel which appear to hold that courts will take judicial notice of the contents of the legislative journals, and that it is the duty of the court, when a statute is claimed to be unconstitutional for reasons appearing in the journals, to examine them, and determine the question; but the authorities cited are not from this state. The question has been settled here, and decided contrary to the contention of counsel. In the case of Marean v. Stanley, 21 Colo. 43, 39 P. 1086, it was said: 'While courts take judicial notice whether a statute is or is not valid when the same is in dispute, yet they will not, on the mere assertion of counsel that a statute is invalid because of noncompliance with some constitutional requirement in its passage, examine the journals of the respective houses to ascertain how that fact may be; and, although it is not necessary to plead the unconstitutionality of a statute, the party seeking to question its validity must in some way present the facts upon which he relies to the trial court; and, if he desires to have the decision of that court reviewed, he must, by bill of exceptions, make such proof a part of the record, and cannot, in the first instance, and without its being properly in the record, have the question considered in the appellate court.' It is not within the power of counsel to enter into a stipulation the effect of which will render a law void, nor will a law be held to be invalid because counsel have failed to deny the facts alleged concerning the entries in the legislative journals, even if the allegation, if true, would compel the court to declare that act unconstitutional; and the court will not consider admissions of a party that a law has not been passed in accordance with the Constitution, nor an admission of facts as to the contents of the legislative journals, for the purpose of inquiring into the validity of a statute found in the office of the Secretary of State, or published under his authority, and the only way that an alleged noncompliance with the Constitution in the passage of an act can be determined by the trial court is that pointed out in the case cited; and, when the decision is sought to be reversed, the proof offered before the trial court must be made a part of the record by bill of exceptions. No proof was made before the trial court of the facts alleged in the motion to quash, and we shall therefore not inspect the legislative journals for the purpose of ascertaining whether the Constitution has been complied with in the passage of the act in question.
The defendant requested the court to instruct the jury that unless the evidence on behalf of the state established...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Riordan
...was committed the burden is upon him to establish that fact by evidence." 10 Enc. Ev. 580; State v. McNair, 93 N.C. 628; Peckham v. People, 32 Colo. 140, 75 P. 423; People v. Ah Yek, 29 Cal. 575; State Knighten, 39 Ore. 63, 87 Am. St. Rep. 647, 64 P. 866; Mitchell v. People, 24 Colo. 532, 5......
-
People v. Clifford
...to plead to the motion and his failure to so do did not amount to an admission of the truth of the allegations of the motion. Peckham v. People, supra. In this connection, as have seen, it was the duty of the defendant to sustain the motion by competent proof. The evidence relied upon to sh......
-
Davidson v. Patnaude
...E. 1041, Ann. Cas. 1914D, 467; State v. Withrow, 154 Mo. 397; Dubuque & D. Ry. Co. v. Diehl, 64 Iowa, 635, 21 N. W. 117; Peckham v. People, 32 Colo. 140, 75 Pac. 422; State v. Manley, 34 S. D. 634, 150 N. W. The application of these rules leads us to decline to hold the statute unconstituti......
-
Davidson v. Patnaude
...N.E. 1041, Ann. Cas. 1914D, 467; State v. Withrow, 154 Mo. 397; Dubuque & D. Ry. Co. v. Diehl, 64 Iowa 635, 21 N.W. 117; Peckham v. People, 32 Colo. 140, 75 P. 422; State v. Manley, 34 S.D. 634, 150 N.W. The application of these rules leads us to decline to hold the statute unconstitutional......