People v. Ingersoll, 25237
| Decision Date | 13 February 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 25237,25237 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Terry Lee INGERSOLL, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., John P. Moore, Deputy Atty. Gen., E. Ronald Beeks, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.
Rollie R. Rogers, Colorado State Public Defender, J. D. MacFarlane, Chief Deputy State Public Defender, Allan I. Lipson, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, for defendant-appellant.
The defendant Terry Lee Ingersoll was charged and found guilty of felony theft. 1967 Perm.Supp., C.R.S.1963, 40--5--2. After sentence, the defendant filed a motion in arrest of judgment, claiming that he was not advised of the nature and cause of the accusation, rights guaranteed him by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article II, Section 16 of the Colorado Constitution.
The trial court denied the motion. The ruling was correct, so we affirm.
The defendant concedes that the offense was charged in the language of the statute as permitted by 40--5--2(3), 1967 Perm.Supp., C.R.S.1963. But, contends the defendant, since proof of specific intent is an essential element of the offense, the specific intent must be alleged in the charging document.
We dealt with the constitutionality of this statute in Edwards v. People, Colo., 491 P.2d 566 (1971), and held, in accordance with Gallegos v. People, 166 Colo. 409, 444 P.2d 267 (1968), that the information is sufficient if it advises a defendant of the offense with which he is charged. In Ciccarelli v. People, 147 Colo. 413, 364 P.2d 368 (1961), we said that an information is sufficient
The offense of theft when charged as provided in 1967 Perm.Supp., C.R.S.1963, 40--5--2(3), also sufficiently advises the jury of the nature of the offense for which the defendant is on trial, Wright v. People, 116 Colo. 306, 181 P.2d 447 (1947). There is no requirement, either constitutional or statutory, that every element of the offense be alleged in the information, although the several elements (such as specific intent) must, of course, be proved on the trial. The jury is apprised of the requirements as to the proof of the several elements of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jimenez v. Sessions
...the information, although the several elements (such as specific intent) must, of course, be proved on the trial," People v. Ingersoll, 181 Colo. 1, 506 P.2d 364, 365 (1973) (emphases omitted); see also People v. Russell, 36 P.3d 92, 96 (Colo. App. 2001) ("It is not necessary that an inform......
-
People v. Flockhart
...element of the offense that must be proved at trial.” People v. Russell, 36 P.3d 92, 96 (Colo.App.2001); see also People v. Ingersoll, 181 Colo. 1, 3, 506 P.2d 364, 365 (1973) (although specific intent must be proved at trial, it need not be alleged in the information). Further, defendant h......
-
Cervantes v. People
...every element of the offense be alleged in the information. Moody, 674 P.2d at 370 (Lohr, J., dissenting) (citing People v. Ingersoll, 181 Colo. 1, 506 P.2d 364 (1973)). Here, just as in Moody, the proposed amendment was an essential element to be proved by the prosecution beyond a reasonab......
-
People v. Quick, 83SA446
...197 Colo. at 151, 595 P.2d at 221. In reaching our result in Piskula, we also relied on this court's decision in People v. Ingersoll, 181 Colo. 1, 506 P.2d 364 (1973). Close consideration of these three cases does not support the defendant's sweeping suggestion that all theft prosecutions r......
-
Section 16 CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS - RIGHTS OF DEFENDANT.
...There is no requirement, either constitutional or statutory, that every element of theft be alleged in information. People v. Ingersoll, 181 Colo. 1, 506 P.2d 364 (1973). Complaint must be filed when violation of ordinance may include imprisonment. Where a judgment against a defendant under......