People v. Warner
| Decision Date | 18 September 1944 |
| Docket Number | 15458. |
| Citation | 112 Colo. 565,151 P.2d 975 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. WARNER. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; William A Black, Judge.
Fred W Warner was indicted for embezzlement. To review judgment for defendant after sustaining defendant's motion to quash each of the two indictments, the People of the State of Colorado bring error.
Reversed with directions.
James T. Burke, Dist. Atty., and David Rosner Asst. Dist. Atty., both of Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Omar E Garwood and Dickerson, Morrissey & Zarlengo, all of Denver, for defendant in error.
Two indictments for embezzlement, charging similar violations of the same statute, were filed against defendant in error, hereinafter referred to as Warner. His motion to quash each, for the same reasons, was sustained. The district attorney, duly authorized thereto by statute, brings the cause here to review the judgment thereupon accordingly entered.
The statute provides a penalty of one to ten years imprisonment for a public servant who, feloniously or fraudulently, appropriates to his own use the property of any county 'of whatever description it may be.' No value is mentioned.
Section 100, chapter 48, Volume 2, '35 C.S.A. One indictment charges that Warner, 'on or about January 23, 1943,' being such servant and having in his possession lumber belonging to the county, converted thereof to his own use 'lumber for building barn doors.' The other charges that the property, similarly held and converted, was 'lumber for building a horse trailer,' and the date fixed is 'during the year 1942, the exact date to the grand jury unknown.'
The motion to quash contains eighteen paragraphs. Disregarding repetitions and arguments it simply alleges that the indictments are indefinite, ambiguous and duplicitous. The six assignments amount to nothing more than an assertion that they were not vulnerable to the motion and that the court erred in so holding.
The trial court, so far as disclosed by the abstract, based its ruling solely on the ground of no allegation of value. Counsel for Warner do not attempt to support the ruling on that ground. They admit the general rule that a charge in the language of the statute, as was the case here, is good, but point out that there are recognized exceptions thereto and contend that one of these is here present. Their argument runs thus: 'Lumber' is a general term, including everything in the world of wood, from soft pine to mahogany from shingles to 4 by 8 inch timbers, and from 'roofing' to 'quarter-round.' Hence, they say, in substance, a charge of embezzling 'lumber,' without designation of the kind, amount, condition, purpose or price, does not comply with the rule that one charged must not only be so definitely apprised of the exact nature of the accusation as to adequately prepare and present his defense, but, convicted or acquitted, protect himself from further prosecution for the same offense, or double jeopardy, as guaranteed by Section 18 of Article II of our constitution. In this they are quite correct, and where something more than the words of the statute are essential to give a defendant that information and afford him that protection an exception to the general rule arises and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Sellers, 254
...himself and be protected from further prosecution for the same offense. Johnson v. People, 110 Colo. 283, 133 P.2d 789; People v. Warner, 112 Colo. 565, 151 P.2d 975. 'In Sarno v. People, 74 Colo. 528, 223 P. 41, it was held that the information need not charge in the exact language of the ......
-
Feltes v. People
...prosecutions for the same offenses. Diggs v. People, Colo., 492 P.2d 840; People v. Allen, 167 Colo. 158, 446 P.2d 223; People v. Warner, 112 Colo. 565, 151 P.2d 975. II. Defendants next assert that it was error for the trial court to deny defendants' motion for judgment of acquittal and to......
-
Ciccarelli v. People
...himself and be protected from further prosecution for the same offense. Johnson v. People, 110 Colo. 283, 133 P.2d 789; People v. Warner, 112 Colo. 565, 151 P.2d 975. In Sarno v. People, 74 Colo. 528, 223 P. 41, it was held that the information need not charge in the exact language of the s......
-
Diggs v. People
...of the protection against further prosecution for the same offense. People v. Allen, 167 Colo. 158, 446 P.2d 223; People v. Warner, 112 Colo. 565, 151 P.2d 975. It has also been held that clumsy wording alone does not render an information defective where its meaning is, nevertheless, clear......