People v. Xericos

Decision Date06 August 1974
Docket NumberNo. 25849,25849
CitationPeople v. Xericos, 525 P.2d 415, 186 Colo. 21 (Colo. 1974)
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George XERICOS, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtColorado Supreme Court

John P. Moore, Atty. Gen., John E. Bush, Deputy Atty. Gen., E. Ronald Beeks, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.

Morrato, Gueck & Colantuno, James J. Morrato, Denver, for defendant-appellant.

DAY, Justice.

This is an appeal from a conviction of a violation of C.R.S.1963, 40--9--11, making it a crime to act as or to engage oneself as a pimp.The section was repealed in 1971 Perm.Supp., C.R.S.1963, 40--7--206.Though several issues have been presented, one requires reversal and, therefore, the others need no discussion.Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the indictment.We find it fatally defective and therefore reverse.

I.

The indictment returned against this defendant stated:

'That George Xericos did, on or about November 14, 1969, in the County of Arapahoe, State of Colorado, being a male person, over the age of eighteen years (18), did act or engage himself as a pimp; contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the People of the State of Colorado.'

The statute which the indictment referred to was C.R.S.1963, 40--9--11, which states in pertinent part:

'Any male person, over the age of eighteen years who shall act as an employee or servant in or about any room, house or place of prostitution; Or who shall act or engage himself as a pimp, * * *'(Emphasis added.)

The relevant portion of the statute, it should be noted, did not set forth a definition of what acts constitute pimping or engaging as a pimp.Likewise the indictment failed to relate with any specificity the act or acts which constituted the crime charged.

II.

The purposes of a criminal indictment by a grand jury are essentially twofold.First, it must give the defendant sufficient notice of the crime that has allegedly been committed so that a defense may be prepared.Tracy v. People, 65 Colo. 226, 176 P. 280(1918).Second, it must define the acts which constitute the crime with sufficient definiteness so that the defendant may plead the resolution of the indictment as a bar to subsequent proceedings.People v. Allen, 167 Colo. 158, 446 P.2d 223(1968).Accordingly, we have held in prior cases that where the acts constituting the offense are not described by the statute, an indictment merely reciting the...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
8 cases
  • Kogan v. People
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • May 9, 1988
    ...basis. The petitioner, Edward G. Kogan, does not question the sufficiency of the information in this case. See People v. Xericos, 186 Colo. 21, 525 P.2d 415 (1974) (indictment or information must give defendant sufficient notice of crime to enable him to prepare a defense and to permit him ......
  • People v. Zupancic
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • December 13, 1976
    ...to communicate with a juror other than as part of the proceedings in the trial of that case. . . .' We said in People v. Xericos, 186 Colo. 21, 525 P.2d 415 (1974): 'The purposes of a criminal indictment by a grand jury are essentially twofold. First, it must give the defendant sufficient n......
  • People v. Beruman
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • January 11, 1982
    ...People v. Donachy, 196 Colo. 289, 586 P.2d 14 (1978); People v. Zupancic, 192 Colo. 231, 557 P.2d 1195 (1977); People v. Xericos, 186 Colo. 21, 525 P.2d 415 (1974); and Schraeder v. People, 73 Colo. 400, 215 P. 869 (1923); see also People v. Tucker, Colo., 631 P.2d 162 (1981). Therefore, an......
  • People v. Buckallew
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • March 15, 1993
    ...definiteness so that the defendant may plead the resolution of the indictment as a bar to subsequent proceedings. People v. Xericos, 186 Colo. 21, 525 P.2d 415 (1974). "To accomplish these purposes the indictment must clearly state the essential facts which constitute the offense. Fundament......
  • Get Started for Free