People v. Shortt, 27347
Decision Date | 06 December 1976 |
Docket Number | No. 27347,27347 |
Citation | 192 Colo. 183,557 P.2d 388 |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carl M. SHORTT, Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
John F. Healy, Dist. Atty. of the Fifth Judicial District, W. Terry Ruckriegle, Deputy Dist. Atty., Georgetown, for plaintiff-appellant.
No appearance by defendant-appellee.
This is an appeal by the People from a judgment of dismissal of an information charging the defendant with possession of cannabis with intent to sell in violation of section 12--22--404, C.R.S.1973. Following a hearing on the defendant's motion to dismiss, the trial court concluded that the relevant statutes failed to 'create' the crime charged in the information. In its order dismissing the information the court stated:
We do not agree with the trial judge's interpretation of the relevant statutes and therefore reverse.
Section 12--22--404, C.R.S.1973 (1975 Supp.) declares that it is unlawful to possess or use any dangerous drug, including cannabis. Section 12--22--412(3), C.R.S.1973, in the section headed 'Violations-Penalties' declares that:
'8any person who has in his possession any dangerous drug with the intent to dispense said drug in violation of the provisions of section 12--12--404 . . . is guilty of a felony . . ..' 1
Read in context, these statutes adequately inform a person of ordinary intelligence of the conduct that is forbidden, that it is a crime to possess cannabis with intent to sell. The subheading provided in the codification of the relevant statutes is no part of the text and will not defeat a clear legislative prohibition. Section 2--5--113(4), C.R.S.1973.
This information complies with the technical requirement of specificity by setting forth the statutory crime charged with a sufficient degree of certainty that a court could pronounce judgment upon a conviction. Crim.P. 7(b)(2); Section 16--5--202, C.R.S.1973. The statutory reference, although it may be inaccurate, was an immaterial part of the information, People v. Marion, 182 Colo. 435, 514 P.2d 327 (1973); Lucero v. People, 164 Colo. 247 434 P.2d 128 (1967). As the trial court itself recognized, that inaccuracy was not fatal and, if necessary, could be ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
General Conference of Church of God-7th Day v. Carper
... ... 15, 300 P.2d 535 (1956), was controlling and that there was insufficient 'benefit' to the people of Colorado to justify the exemption. The Board of Assessment Appeals and the district court ... ...
-
People v. Johnson
...statutory reference in the information is an immaterial part of the information, which itself could have been amended. People v. Shortt, 192 Colo. 183, 557 P.2d 388 (1976). Thus, we hold that the language of an information charging an offense is the controlling factor in determining whether......
-
People v. Paulsen, 28338
...intent to dispense said drug in violation of the provisions of section 12-22-404 . . . is guilty of a felony . . .." People v. Shortt, 192 Colo. 183, 557 P.2d 388 (1976), is dispositive of this issue. In Shortt, we held that the trial court had acted improperly in dismissing an information ......
-
Waltemeyer v. People ex rel. City of Arvada, 81SC355
...4-1(b), section 4-9 adequately specifies the proscribed conduct and informs violators of the potential penalties. People v. Shortt, 192 Colo. 183, 557 P.2d 388 (1976). See also Olinyk v. People, 642 P.2d 490 (Colo.1982); People v. Paulsen, 198 Colo. 458, 601 P.2d 634 (1979). The traffic cod......