People v. Del Toro
| Decision Date | 21 September 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 21176,21176 |
| Citation | 155 Colo. 487,395 P.2d 357 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the City of Aurora, Colorado, Plaintiff in Error, v. Virgil DEL TORO, Jr., Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Leland M. Coulter, City Atty., John P. Gately, Asst. City Atty., Aurora, for plaintiff in error.
William J. Hewitt, Denver, for defendant in error.
An ordinance of the City of Aurora reads as follows:
'It shall be unlawful for any person to resist any police officer, or any member of the police department or any person duly empowered with police authority, while in the discharge or apparent discharge of his duty, or in any way to interfere or hinder him in the discharge or apparent discharge of his duty.' (Emphasis supplied.)
Del Toro was charged in the Municipal Court of Aurora with violating the aforementioned ordinance and upon trial a jury adjudged him to be guilty and imposed a $25 fine therefor.
Being dissatisfied with the outcome of his trial in the Municipal Court, Del Toro perfected an appeal to the County Court of Adams County, where he obtained a trial de novo. This trial proved to be much more satisfactory to Mr. Del Toro and culminated in a judgment dismissing the charge.
More specifically, after the City of Aurora and Del Toro had presented their evidence as to the facts and circumstances surrounding the alleged offense, Del Toro moved to dismiss the charge and the trial judge granted the motion and entered the aforementioned judgment of dismissal. In thus disposing of the matter, the trial judge did not pass upon the sufficiency of the evidence, but declared that the ordinance in question is unconstitutional because it fails to include scienter, or guilty knowledge, as one of its essential ingredients and as an additional reason for his action stated that the ordinance is so vague and uncertain that it fails to state an offense.
Taken somewhat aback at this turn of events the City of Aurora by writ of error now seeks disapproval of the judgment of dismissal and a declaration from this Court that the ordinance making it unlawful to interfere with a police officer in the discharge of his duties is not subject to the infirmities perceived by the trial court. In our view the trial court did commit error and we shall briefly state our reasons therefor.
It has long been recognized that a law-making body, be it state legislature or city council, may make the commission of a prohibited act a crime, irrespective of the element of scienter, or so-called guilty knowledge. See 14...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Corporation of Haverford College v. Reeher
...explaining there was to be no "harassment, intimidation, threats, hostile words or acts, and similar behavior." People v. Del Toro, 155 Colo. 487, 395 P.2d 357 (1964), holds that "interfere" is not a vague and uncertain term but is well-defined and generally The word "prevent" means to hind......
-
United States v. Baranski
...sufficiently precise, see, e. g., Cameron v. Johnson, 390 U.S. 611, 615-616, 88 S.Ct. 1335, 20 L.Ed.2d 182 (1968); People v. Del Toro, 155 Colo. 487, 395 P.2d 357, 358 (1964); Powers v. McCullough, 258 Iowa 738, 140 N.W.2d 378, 384-385 (1966). Similar language is used in other federal crimi......
-
State v. Silva
...318 F.Supp. 1079 (E.D.Tenn.1970) ('obstruct', 'block or interfere with the customary, normal use of said campus'); People v. Del Toro, 155 Colo. 487, 395 P.2d 357 (1964) ('interfere'); Landry v. Daley, 280 F.Supp. 938 (N.D.Ill.1968), appeal dismissed in Landry v. Boyle, 393 U.S. 220, 89 S.C......
-
City of Englewood v. Hammes
...that the phrase "in the discharge of his duty" is unconstitutionally vague. The district court did not mention People v. Del Toro, 155 Colo. 487, 395 P.2d 357 (1964) in which this Court held that an identical Aurora ordinance was not vague or uncertain in meaning. See generally Smith v. Gog......