Roland v. People
| Decision Date | 07 December 1896 |
| Citation | 23 Colo. 283,47 P. 269 |
| Parties | ROLAND v. PEOPLE. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Error to district court, Otero county.
Action by the people of the state of Colorado against Lou A. Roland for larceny. Defendant was found guilty on the first count. Motions for new trial and in arrest of judgment were overruled, and defendant was sentenced to the penitentiary. Defendant brings error. Reversed.
John R. Dixon, for plaintiff in error.
Byron L. Carr, Atty. Gen., and F. P. Secor, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the People.
Lou A Roland was informed against in the district court of Otero county for the crime of larceny. The information contained two counts. The first count charged him with the larceny of one heifer, of the value of $15, the property of Towers Bros. The second count charged him with the larceny of one heifer of the value of $15, the personal property 'of some person the owner of which to said district attorney is unknown.' The case was first tried at the April term, 1894. Upon this trial the court, inter alia, instructed the jury as follows 'The court instructs the jury that upon the first count the state has failed to make out the ownership as in the information alleged, and therefore need not be considered by you in this case, and leaves to your consideration only the charge that is given in the second count of one unknown.' 'You are instructed that there is no legal evidence in this cause to show ownership of the heifer described in the information in Towers Bros. You are therefore instructed that you must acquit the defendant on the first count of the information.' And submitted to the jury the following forms of verdict: 'We, the jury, find the defendant guilty, as charged in the information, upon the second count, and the value of the property taken to be $_____.' Or: 'We, the jury, find the defendant not guilty.' The jury failed to agree, and were discharged. The case was again set for trial at the April term, 1895, whereupon the defendant interposed a plea of former jeopardy, setting forth therein the record of the proceedings of the April term, 1894, a copy of the instructions of the court withdrawing the first count of the information from the jury, and directing an acquittal thereon, concluding with a prayer for judgment that he ought not to be put further to answer said first count of the information. This plea was overruled, and the defendant was again put upon trial upon both counts of the information, was found guilty upon the first count, and recommended to the leniency of the court. Motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment were overruled, and he was sentenced to confinement for one year and six months in the state penitentiary.
The record contains several other matters upon which error is assigned, but it is unnecessary to specify or consider them since it is apparent from the foregoing statement that the error committed by the court below in overruling the plea of former jeopardy to the first count of the information necessitates a reversal of the sentence. This ruling is sought to be upheld upon the theory that but one offense was charged in the information,--that the two counts, being based upon the same act, charged the same offense,--and, although the defendant was in jeopardy upon the first trial, such jeopardy was suspended by reason of the failure of the jury to render any verdict, and such failure left undetermined, and consequently at issue on the subsequent trial, the fact of the larceny, as charged in both counts. We think this claim is without merit. Counsel for the people are mistaken in their assumption that the same offense was charged in both counts. It may be true that the same act or transaction furnished the subject-matter of the offense charged in both. Nevertheless, the offense as charged and set forth in each was different. While our Criminal Code (section 1452, Mills' Ann. St.) permits the joinder in one indictment or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Roller
...counts is equivalent to a dismissal or abandonment of those not selected. But, if this is equivalent to an acquittal thereon, as held in the Roland case (Roland v. People, 23 Colo. 283, 47 P. 269) and the Briola case, (Briola v. People, 76 Colo. 489, 232 P. 924), supra, the state, though ha......
-
People v. Serravo
...(1963) ]; Menton v. Johns, [151 Colo. 276, 377 P.2d 104 (1962) ]; Castner v. People, 67 Colo. 327, 184 P. 387 (1919); Roland v. People, 23 Colo. 283, 47 P. 269 (1896). A retrial on a criminal accusation is prohibited whenever the first trial results in a final judgment favorable to the defe......
-
People v. Quintana
...See, e. g., Krutka v. Spinuzzi, supra; Menton v. Johns, supra; Castner v. People, 67 Colo. 327, 184 P. 387 (1919); Roland v. People, 23 Colo. 283, 47 P. 269 (1896). A retrial on a criminal accusation is prohibited whenever the first trial results in a final judgment favorable to the defenda......
-
Trozzo v. People
... ... the provisions of this act. The court was justified in ... ordering their consolidation for the purposes of a trial, and ... the defendant was in no respect prejudiced thereby. Cummins ... v. People, 4 Colo.App. 71, 34 P. 734; Bergdahl v. People, 27 ... Colo. 302, 61 P. 228; Roland v. People, 23 Colo. 283, 47 P ... 269; Short v. People, 27 Colo. 175, 60 P. 350; Chesnut v ... People, 21 Colo. 512, 42 P. 656 ... [51 ... Colo. 330] The third contention pertains to the rejection of ... testimony. Upon cross-examination the witness Blanche Bennett ... was asked, ... ...