People v. Caddy, C--715
| Decision Date | 22 September 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. C--715,C--715 |
| Citation | 189 Colo. 353,540 P.2d 1089 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Petitioner, v. Steven Ross CADDY, Respondent. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
William J. Knous, Dist. Atty., Montrose, for petitioner.
Woodrow, Roushar & Weaver, Montrose, for respondent.
We granted certiorari to review the action of the district court, and now reverse. Defendant was convicted in the County Court of Montrose County of speeding (65 miles per hour in a posted 55 mile per hour zone). On appeal, the District Court in and for the County of Montrose reversed with directions to the county court to enter a judgment of acquittal and to dismiss the complaint. The judge found that, although Caddy was speeding, he had no knowledge of that fact due to a defective speedometer. Further, the judge found that the Colorado statute setting the maximum speed limit at 55 miles per hour was not in effect at the time of the trial.
The issue involving the validity of the speed limit has been addressed in a recent opinion issued by this court, People v. Driver, Colo., 539 P.2d 1248, which was announced on August 28, 1975. We held there that it was the intent of the legislature to fix a maximum speed limit of 55 miles per hour for a period during which federal restrictions as to speed were continued. Further, the defendant in this case was charged with speeding during November, 1974, when no one questioned that the 55 mile per hour limit was in effect.
The only issue to be resolved here is whether lack of criminal intent is a defense to a charge of speeding.
Defendant presented evidence at trial that his speedometer reflected a speed ten miles per hour below the true speed of his vehicle. There was no evidence that he had knowledge that the speedometer reading was in error, or that he should have known of the defective speedometer. Defendant asserts, and the district court agreed, that his lack of a culpable mental state was a defense to the charge of speeding. We reverse.
The minimum requirements for criminal liability are set out in section 18--1--502, C.R.S.1973 as follows:
'The minimum requirement for criminal liability is the performance by a person of conduct which includes a voluntary act or the omission to perform an act which he is physically capable of performing. If that conduct is all that is required for commission of a particular offense, or if an offense or some material element thereof does not require a culpable mental state on the part of the actor, the offense is one of 'strict liability'. If a culpable mental state on the part of the actor is required with respect to any material element of an offense, the offense is one of 'mental culpability'.'
'Culpable mental state' is defined in section 18--1--501(4), C.R.S.1973, as meaning 'intentionally,' 'knowingly,' 'recklessly,' or 'with 'criminal negligence."
The statute under which defendant was convicted provides in part, 'no person shall drive a vehicle on a highway . . . in excess of a maximum lawful speed of fifty-five miles per hour.'...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Englewood v. Hammes
...upon the actor of ascertaining at his peril whether his deed is within the prohibition of any criminal statute." People v. Caddy, 189 Colo. 353, 355, 540 P.2d 1089, 1091 (1975). Those strict liability statutes which potentially abut upon constitutional freedoms must be narrowly drawn to avo......
-
Global Tropical Imports & Exports Llc v. Bernhardt
...states, speeding is a strict liability offense. See, e.g. , State v. Brown , 107 Wis.2d 44, 318 N.W.2d 370 (1982) ; People v. Caddy , 189 Colo. 353, 540 P.2d 1089 (1975). When caught speeding, drivers often blame unintended acceleration caused by their cruise control devices, suggesting tha......
-
People v. Ellison
...crimes. Examples of strict liability public welfare offenses are speeding and driving under the influence. People v. Caddy, 189 Colo. 353, 354-55, 540 P.2d 1089, 1091 (1975) (speeding); People v. Senn, 824 P.2d 822, 824 n. 3 (Colo.1992) (driving under the influence). Several other states ha......
-
People v. Arzabala
...does not require a culpable mental state on the part of the actor, the offense is one of ‘strict liability.’ ”); People v. Caddy, 189 Colo. 353, 354, 540 P.2d 1089, 1090 (1975) (quoting statute). ¶ 49 Vehicular assault (DUI) “is a strict liability crime.” § 18–3–205(1)(b)(I). To convict, th......