Ruff v. People
| Decision Date | 28 December 1925 |
| Docket Number | 11415. |
| Parties | RUFF v. PEOPLE. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Error to District Court, Larimer County; Robert G. Smith, Judge.
Andy Ruff was convicted of unlawful possession of a still, and he brings error.
Affirmed.
Francher Sarchet, of Ft. Collins, for plaintiff in error.
William L. Boatright, Atty. Gen., and Louis W. Burford, Asst. Atty Gen., for the People.
Plaintiff in error, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was convicted of unlawful possession of a still, and sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of 3 to 5 years. To review that judgment, he brings error, and asks that the writ be made a supersedeas.
Defendant says he was twice put in jeopardy; that the evidence was insufficient; and that the court's instructions were erroneous.
The charge was that defendant, on June 17, 1925, owned and possessed 'a certain still used, designed, and intended for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor,' contrary to section 1, p. 220, Laws 1925. The information was filed July 20, 1925. The sheriff, on June 18, 1925, filed a criminal complaint against defendant in the justice of peace court charging him with unlawfully manufacturing and possessing intoxicating liquor. On that charge, in that court, and prior to the trial in the instant case, defendant was tried and acquitted; hence the plea of double jeopardy. The charges were of distinct and separate offenses under different statutes, and the plea in bar, interposed here on the former acquittal, was properly overruled.
A metal tank, or boiler, or cooker, especially adapted to use for distilling liquor, and formerly used for that purpose, two barrels of mash, and some empty barrels, were found buried in different places on defendant's premises and near his residence. When the mash was discovered defendant said to the officers, 'Well, you've got this much on me; I might as well tell you the whole thing,' and showed them where the empty barrels and boiler were concealed. He then told them the outfit belonged to his brother and himself; that they put the mash in some 10 days before; and that it was about ready to cook. So much defendant admitted on the stand, but said that he did this for the purpose of 'kidding' the officers; that he had, in fact, buried the boiler to accommodate the wife of a neighbor; that he owned the empty barrels and was going to sell them; that they were not buried, but only accidently covered with discarded hay; that 'Bill Blondy' buried the mash there, and, without warning, left for Cheyenne; that he had ordered Blondy to take it away, but forgot all about it after Blondy left, 'and I just thought, 'Well, I didn't put it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. People
...Colo. 152, 415 P.2d 344, cert. denied 385 U.S. 979, 87 S.Ct. 523, 17 L.Ed.2d 441; Hill v. Best, 101 Colo. 243, 72 P.2d 471; Ruff v. People, 78 Colo. 474, 242 P. 633.' The test adopted by the McKenzie case was set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Blockburger v. United States, 284 ......
-
People v. McKenzie, 24068
...Colo. 152, 415 P.2d 344, cert. denied 385 U.S. 979, 87 S.Ct. 523, 17 L.Ed.2d 441; Hill v. Best, 101 Colo. 243, 72 P.2d 471; Ruff v. People, 78 Colo. 474, 242 P. 633. The fact that a prosecutor has the discretion to prosecute a defendant under one or both of two distinct offenses, which aris......
-
Edwards v. People
...a reversal of the judgment as circumstantial evidence may be, and frequently is, most convincing and satisfactory. * * *' In Ruff v. People, 78 Colo. 474, 242 P. 633, we '* * * Circumstantial evidence is as competent and potent in such a case as in any other. Material, relevant, and compete......
-
Schreiner v. People
...the facts bear a striking resemblance to those of the instant case; Gonzales v. People, 128 Colo. 522, 264 P.2d 508; and Ruff v. People, 78 Colo. 474, 242 P. 633. The trial court instructed the jury on the legal responsibility of an accessory, giving the following statutory 'An accessory is......