People v. Bagby, No. 85SA74

Docket NºNo. 85SA74
Citation734 P.2d 1059
Case DateMarch 30, 1987
CourtSupreme Court of Colorado

Page 1059

734 P.2d 1059
The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Insuk BAGBY, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 85SA74.
Supreme Court of Colorado,
En Banc.
March 30, 1987.
Rehearing Denied April 27, 1987.

Page 1060

Barney Iuppa, Dist. Atty., Scott W. Storey, Deputy Dist. Atty., Colorado Springs, for plaintiff-appellant.

Anthony A. Johnson, Colorado Springs, for defendant-appellee.

KIRSHBAUM, Justice.

The People appeal the judgment of the El Paso County District Court dismissing an information charging the defendant, Insuk Bagby, with the offense of offering a false instrument for recording in violation of section 18-5-114, 8B C.R.S. (1986). We affirm.

On September 6, 1984, the defendant filed an application and an individual history record with the El Paso County Clerk and Recorder requesting issuance of a hotel and restaurant liquor license for the Paradise Restaurant & Lounge in Colorado Springs. Both documents required answers to the question of whether the applicant ever had a "direct or indirect interest" in any Colorado liquor license. The defendant answered these questions "no." However, the defendant was at that time vice president and director of Oriental King Corp., which corporation owned the Oriental King Restaurant & Nite Club. 1 On April 19, 1984, the restaurant had been granted a renewal of its hotel and restaurant liquor license.

Section 18-5-114 defines the offense of offering a false instrument for recording as follows:

Offering a false instrument for recording. (1) A person commits offering a false instrument for recording in the first degree if, knowing that a written instrument relating to or affecting real or personal property or directly affecting contractual relationships contains a material false statement or material false information, and with intent to defraud, he presents or offers it to a public office or a public employee, with the knowledge or belief that it will be registered, filed, or recorded or become a part of the records of that public office or public employee.

(2) Offering a false instrument for recording in the first degree is a class 5 felony.

The district court dismissed the information charging the defendant with a violation of this statute on the ground that the conduct constituted at best a misdemeanor violation of the Colorado Liquor Code (the Liquor Code), §§ 12-47-101 to -143, 5 C.R.S. (1985 & 1986 Supp.), and should have been so charged. Section 12-47-130, 5 C.R.S. (1985), provides that any person who violates any provision of the Liquor Code, or any of the rules and regulations authorized and adopted pursuant thereto, is guilty of a misdemeanor. 2 Section 12-47-

Page 1061

129(4)(a), 5 C.R.S. (1985), provides in part that the state licensing authority "shall require a complete disclosure of all persons having a direct or indirect financial interest, and the extent of such interest, in each hotel and restaurant license issued under [the Liquor Code]." Regulation 47-107.1 of the Department of Revenue, 1 C.C.R. 203-2, provides that "[a]ll information submitted to any licensing authority, by application for license or otherwise, shall be given fully, faithfully, truthfully and fairly." 3

The defendant's conduct, as alleged, arguably violates Regulation 47-107.1 and section 12-47-129(4)(a). Section 12-47-130 defines such violations as misdemeanor offenses and establishes the punishment applicable to such misconduct. The People assert that the same alleged conduct violates section 18-5-114 and, therefore, may be charged as a distinct felony offense. The People rely on the provisions of section 18-1-408(7), 8B C.R.S. (1986), to support this argument. That statute states as...

To continue reading

Request your trial
32 practice notes
  • People v. Stewart, No. 00SC672.
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • 9 Septiembre 2002
    ...circumstances in which this general rule does not apply. See, e.g., People v. Smith, 938 P.2d 111, 115-16 (Colo.1997); People v. Bagby, 734 P.2d 1059, 1061-62 Stewart has failed to show that his crimes fall into this category. He simply asserts that the General Assembly intended to punish m......
  • People v. Wentling, Court of Appeals No. 12CA1423
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals of Colorado
    • 3 Diciembre 2015
    ...a general criminal statute unless a [clear] legislative intent is shown to limit prosecution to the special statute." People v. Bagby, 734 P.2d 1059, 1061 (Colo.1987) ; see also People v. Smith, 938 P.2d 111, 115 (Colo.1997) ; People v. Clanton, 2015 COA 8, ¶ 11, 938 P.3d 111. The determina......
  • People v. Davis, No. 07CA0595.
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals of Colorado
    • 24 Diciembre 2008
    ...statute." Stewart, 55 P.3d at 115; People v. Smith, 938 P.2d 111, 115-16 (Colo. 1997); Westrum, 624 P.2d at 1303. In People v. Bagby, 734 P.2d 1059 (Colo. 1987), the defendant filed an application requesting issuance of a hotel and restaurant liquor license and falsely indicated that he had......
  • People v. THORO PROD. CO., No. 99CA1365.
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals of Colorado
    • 29 Marzo 2001
    ...not specify a felony class. Accordingly, the general provisions of the Criminal Code do not apply to this crime. See People v. Bagby, 734 P.2d 1059 (Colo. 1987) (§§ 18-1-101 to 18-1-108 evidence an intent to delineate fully in the Liquor Code itself the types of punishment available for vio......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
32 cases
  • People v. Stewart, No. 00SC672.
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • 9 Septiembre 2002
    ...circumstances in which this general rule does not apply. See, e.g., People v. Smith, 938 P.2d 111, 115-16 (Colo.1997); People v. Bagby, 734 P.2d 1059, 1061-62 Stewart has failed to show that his crimes fall into this category. He simply asserts that the General Assembly intended to punish m......
  • People v. Wentling, Court of Appeals No. 12CA1423
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals of Colorado
    • 3 Diciembre 2015
    ...a general criminal statute unless a [clear] legislative intent is shown to limit prosecution to the special statute." People v. Bagby, 734 P.2d 1059, 1061 (Colo.1987) ; see also People v. Smith, 938 P.2d 111, 115 (Colo.1997) ; People v. Clanton, 2015 COA 8, ¶ 11, 938 P.3d 111. The determina......
  • People v. Davis, No. 07CA0595.
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals of Colorado
    • 24 Diciembre 2008
    ...statute." Stewart, 55 P.3d at 115; People v. Smith, 938 P.2d 111, 115-16 (Colo. 1997); Westrum, 624 P.2d at 1303. In People v. Bagby, 734 P.2d 1059 (Colo. 1987), the defendant filed an application requesting issuance of a hotel and restaurant liquor license and falsely indicated that he had......
  • People v. THORO PROD. CO., No. 99CA1365.
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals of Colorado
    • 29 Marzo 2001
    ...not specify a felony class. Accordingly, the general provisions of the Criminal Code do not apply to this crime. See People v. Bagby, 734 P.2d 1059 (Colo. 1987) (§§ 18-1-101 to 18-1-108 evidence an intent to delineate fully in the Liquor Code itself the types of punishment available for vio......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT