People v. Willson
| Decision Date | 09 December 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 26345,26345 |
| Citation | 187 Colo. 141,528 P.2d 1315 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James WILLSON, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
John P. Moore, Atty. Gen., John E. Bush, Deputy Atty. Gen., Eugene F. Megyesy, Jr., Chris J. Eliopulos, Asst. Attys. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.
Wayne C. Hodson, Colorado Springs, for defendant-appellant.
Defendant Willson was found guilty of violating a regulation promulgated by the Department of Revenue under the provisions of the Liquor Code (C.R.S.1963, 75--2--1 et seq.) His conviction in the El Paso County Court was affirmed on appeal to the district court of El Paso County. We granted certiorari to consider the defendant's contention that the courts below erred in finding that the Department of Revenue had the power under the Liquor Code to promulgate the regulation because it amounted to an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. This argument is without merit, and the judgment is therefore affirmed.
On February 1, 1972, the Department of Revenue Promulgated Regulation 19D, which provides in part:
'No licensee, manager or agent shall employ or permit upon any liquor licensed on-sale premises, any employee, waiter, waitreee, entertainer, host or hostess to mingle with patrons and personally beg, procure, or solicit the purchase or sale of crings or beverages for the use of the one begging, procuring or soliciting or for the use of any other employee.'
The penalty for violation of this regulation is provided in C.R.S.1963, 75--2--28. See also, 1967 Perm.Supp., C.R.S.1963, 75--2--11.
We note at this point the decision of our Court of Appeals in 4--D Brothers, Inc. v. Heckers, Colo.App., 522 P.2d 749 (1974), which upheld the validity of Regulation 19D against the challenge that as applied in that case, it was not reasonably related to a valid exercise of the police power. The rationale of that opinion is of significance in the case at bar.
Defendant was convicted in the county court of violating Regulation 19D. The evidence presented at trial amply demonstrated that defendant, as owner of a bar, instructed his employees to solicit customers to purchase drinks for the employees to consume.
This court has frequently reiterated the general rule of law that the legislature may not delegate the power to make or define a law, but it may delegate the power to determine the applicable facts and situations to which the law applies. This rule, essentially derived from the classic decision of Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 12 S.Ct. 495, 36 L.Ed. 294 (1892) has been applied in numerous Colorado decisions. See People ex rel. Dunbar v. Giordano, 173 Colo. 567, 481 P.2d 415 (1971), and cases cited therein. In Swisher v. Brown, 157 Colo. 378, 388, 402 P.2d 621, 626 (1965),...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Lakewood v. Colfax Unlimited Ass'n, Inc.
...delegation to administrative authorities of the legislature's exclusive power to make or define a law. See People v. Willson, 187 Colo. 141, 528 P.2d 1315 (1974). The standing principles which compel us to dismiss plaintiffs' vagueness challenge compel the dismissal of this claim for relief......
-
Cottrell v. City and County of Denver
...has been an argument frequently invoked but seldom sustained. E. g., Elizondo v. Department of Revenue, supra; People v. Willson, 187 Colo. 141, 528 P.2d 1315 (1974); Fry Roofing Co. v. Department of Health, 179 Colo. 223, 499 P.2d 1176 (1972); People v. Giordano, 173 Colo. 567, 481 P.2d 41......
-
Citizens For Free Enterprise v. Department of Revenue, State of Colo.
...of rulemaking authority, we conclude that the conduct regulation was within the department's authority. See People v. Willson, 187 Colo. 141, 528 P.2d 1315 (1974). In reaching our conclusion, we also necessarily reject the argument that in prescribing "Offenses Relating to Morals" in Articl......
-
Colorado Auto & Truck Wreckers Ass'n v. Department of Revenue, 79SA455
...v. Giordano, 173 Colo. 567, 481 P.2d 415 (1971); Asphalt Paving Co. v. Board of County Commissioners, supra; see also People v. Willson, 187 Colo. 141, 528 P.2d 1315 (1974). Accordingly, we conclude that section 42-6-134 is not invalid as an improper delegation of legislative authority to t......
-
Legislative and Judicial Oversight of Rulemaking
...See, People v. Lepik, 629 P.2d 1080, 1082 (Colo. 1981). 36. Colo. River Water Cons. Dist., note 31, supra at 478. 37. People v. Willson, 187 Colo. 141, 144, 528 P.2d 1315, 1316 (1964). 38. People v. Lowrie, 761 P.2d 778, 781 (Colo. 1988). 39. Id., at 782. 40. Urbish v. Lamm, 761 P.2d 756, 7......