People v. Lipira

Decision Date11 December 1980
Docket NumberNo. 79CA0242,79CA0242
Citation621 P.2d 1389
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stephen Vincent LIPIRA, Defendant-Appellant. . II
CourtColorado Court of Appeals

J. D. MacFarlane, Atty. Gen., J. Stephen Phillips, Deputy Atty. Gen., Anthony Marquez, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.

Mitchell Benedict, III, Denver, for defendant-appellant.

ENOCH, Chief Judge.

This is an appeal by defendant, Stephen Vincent Lipira, of a judgment of conviction of third degree arson.

After the case was scheduled for oral argument, the attorney general advised the Court that since the filing of this appeal, the defendant had died, and therefore moved that the appeal be dismissed. The defendant's attorney has requested, on behalf of defendant's widow, that we proceed with the appeal and rule on the merits of the issues raised.

In a few states the courts, under the circumstances of this case, have ruled that the appeal should proceed to a determination of the issues on their merits. See, e. g., State v. Jones, 220 Kan. 136, 551 P.2d 801 (1976); People v. Columbo, 24 App.Div.2d 505, 261 N.Y.S.2d 836 (1965). In some states the courts have held that because of the death of the defendant, the issues on appeal have become moot and therefore the appeal should be dismissed. See, e. g., Neville v. State, 243 Ind. 28, 181 N.E.2d 638 (1962). In the majority of states, however, where this problem has been addressed, it has been decided that the appellate proceedings and the trial court proceedings should abate ab initio. See, e. g., People v. Mazzone, 74 Ill.2d 44, 23 Ill.Dec. 76, 383 N.E.2d 947 (1978); State v. Blake, 53 Ohio App.2d 101, 371 N.E.2d 843 (1977). See generally Annot., 83 A.L.R.2d 864 (1962). Accordingly, those courts have held that there should be no determination of the issues raised on appeal, that the judgment of conviction should be set aside and that the indictment or complaint should be dismissed.

Colorado is in accord with the majority rule. However, under such circumstances as are present here, the Supreme Court has not been definitive in its direction to the trial court as to the final disposition of the case. In Overland Cotton Mills Co. v. People, 32 Colo. 263, 75 P. 924 (1904), where one of the defendants died pending appeal, the court held, without indicating whether it was referring to the total proceedings or just the appellate proceedings, that as to that defendant the proceedings were "abated by operation of law" and concluded that as to that defendant "the judgment is abated." In Crowley v. People, 122 Colo. 466, 223 P.2d 387 (1950), the court quoted from Overland, supra, in holding that the proceedings were "abated by...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • State v. Hoxsie
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • September 11, 1997
    ...431 (Cal.App.1996); People v. Dail, 22 Cal.2d 642, 140 P.2d 828 (1943); People v. Valdez, 911 P.2d 703 (Colo.App.1996); People v. Lipira, 621 P.2d 1389 (Colo.App.1980); Crowley v. People, 122 Colo. 466, 223 P.2d 387 (1950); Howell v. United States, 455 A.2d 1371 (D.C.App.1983) (citing Clark......
  • People v. Daly
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • June 9, 2011
    ...can be made out of his estate.” Crowley, 122 Colo. at 468, 223 P.2d at 388 (quoting Mitchell, 163 F. at 1017). In People v. Lipira, 621 P.2d 1389, 1390 (Colo.App.1980), a division of this court concluded that the term “abate,” as used in Overland, means that a defendant's death renders the ......
  • Howell v. United States
    • United States
    • D.C. Court of Appeals
    • January 26, 1983
    ...The courts of several states have reached similar results. See State v. Griffin, 121 Ariz. 538, 592 P.2d 372 (1979); People v. Lipira, Colo. App., 621 P.2d 1389 (1980); State v. Gomes, 57 Haw. 271, 554 P.2d 235 (1978); People v. Mazzone, 74 Ill.2d 44, 23 Ill.Dec. 76, 383 N.E.2d 947 (1978); ......
  • Majors v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • May 21, 2020
    ...the Durham rule for petitions in error but not for appeals of right.3 Wheat v. State , 907 So. 2d 461 (Ala. 2005).4 People v. Lipira , 621 P.2d 1389 (Colo. App. 1980).5 State v. Carlin , 249 P.3d 752 (Alaska 2011) ; Thompson v. State , 2016 Ark. 383, 503 S.W.3d 62 (2016) ; Ark. R. App. P. C......
  • 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