People v. Graham
| Decision Date | 03 February 1941 |
| Docket Number | 14648. |
| Citation | 107 Colo. 202,110 P.2d 256 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. GRAHAM. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; Robert W Steele, Judge.
Ralph Graham was charged with failing to stop his motor vehicle at scene of an accident, with failing to give his name, address and registration number, and failing to render assistance to persons injured. Judgment dismissing the information, and the People bring error.
Reversed and case remanded with directions.
John A. Carroll, Dist. Atty., Anthony F. Zarlengo Asst. Dist. Atty., and Thomas Henry Ryan, Deputy Dist. Atty., all of Denver, Byron G. Rogers, Atty. Gen., and Reid Williams, Asst. Atty. Gen., for plaintiff in error.
Van Cise, Robinson & Charlton and J. E. Robinson, all of Denver, for defendant in error.
This is a criminal proceeding instituted on behalf of the people in connection with an automobile accident occurring within the municipal area of the City and County of Denver. Graham, defendant in error, to whom we hereinafter refer as defendant, was charged, in three counts of an information filed in the district court, with violations of sections 174 and 176, chapter 16, '35 C.S.A., in this (1) Failing to stop his motor vehicle at the scene of the accident, and as close thereto as possible, and failing to return forthwith and remain at the scene of the accident; (2) failing to give his name, address and registration number of the automobile he was driving; (3) failing to render to the person injured in the accident reasonable assistance or any assistance whatever, although it was apparent that assistance was necessary. To this information, and to each count thereof, defendant filed a motion to quash on the ground that it failed to set forth facts sufficient to constitute an offense under the laws of the state of Colorado. As a basis of said motion it was urged that Denver is a home-rule city under section 6, article XX, of the state Constitution, and as such has exclusive jurisdiction in local and municipal affairs; that the offenses charged are local and municipal in character; that in such matters the charter or ordinance of the municipality supersedes, within its territorial limits, any law of the state in conflict therewith; that the offenses charged occurred in connection with the regulation of motor vehicle traffic, and that at the time they occurred the unlawful acts alleged to have been committed by defendant were covered by ordinance of the City and County of Denver. With these contentions the trial court agreed, sustained the motion to quash and entered judgment dismissing the information. To this action of the court the people assign error and seek reversal.
The only question with which we are here concerned is whether the derelictions charged in the information are violations of regulations of motor vehicle traffic of a local and municipal nature, over which a home-rule city has exclusive jurisdiction. If not, the general laws of the state apply. Defendant, in support of his contention that the offenses charged constitute regulation of motor vehicle traffic,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Woolverton v. City and County of Denver
...of the home rule city. All other matters are subject to the control of the state. This is the unequivocal meaning of People v. Graham, 107 Colo. 202, 110 P.2d 256, 257. 'The only question with which we are here concerned is whether the derelictions charged in the information are violations ......
-
City of Canon City v. Merris
...intoxicating liquor is a matter of state-wide concern. Ordinarily, regulation of traffic is a local and municipal matter. People v. Graham, 107 Colo. 202, 110 P.2d 256. Hence, questions of speed, right of way, parking, designation of one-way streets, and similar measures, all regulatory in ......
-
Retallack v. Police Court of City of Colorado Springs
...the primary function of local government. McQuillin on Municipal Corporation, sec. 24.609 et seq. And this court said in People v. Graham, 107 Colo. 202, 110 P.2d 256, that there still is a field in motor vehicle traffic regulation, local in its nature, which cannot be questioned. In City a......
-
Denver and Rio Grande Western R. Co. v. City and County of Denver
...our view, the municipal ordinance would have a substantial impact on persons living outside the municipal limits. In People v. Graham, 107 Colo. 202, 110 P.2d 256 (1941), we found that matters are likely to be characterized as of state-wide concern where uniformity of regulation is desirabl......
-
Property Tax Assessments in Colorado
...on Finance, available through the State of Colorado, Legislative Drafting Office). 30. Berman, supra, note 29 and People v. Graham, 107 Colo. 202, 205, 110 P.2d 256 (1941). 31. Ray v. City and County of Denver, 109 Colo. 74, 121 P.2d 886 (1942). 32. Final revenue analysis for 1981 indicates......
-
Home Rule in Colorado: Evolution or Devolution
...Denver, 926 P.2d 582 (Colo. 1996) (court relies on its own precedent when subject matter constitutes local concern). 15. People v. Graham, 110 P.2d 256 (Colo. 1941); City Commerce City, supra, note 7 at 1281. 16. Graham, supra, note 15 at 257; City of Commerce City, supra, note 7. 17. Denve......