Wright v. People, 14552.
| Citation | 91 P.2d 499,104 Colo. 335 |
| Decision Date | 01 May 1939 |
| Docket Number | 14552. |
| Parties | WRIGHT v. PEOPLE. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Colorado |
Error to District Court, Las Animas County; David M. Ralston Judge.
Sam Wright was convicted under an indictment charging him as highway overseer of unlawfully receiving and converting money belonging to the county, and he brings error.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded, with instructions to dismiss the indictment and discharge the defendant.
Joseph W. Hawley, of Trinidad, for plaintiff in error.
Byron G. Rogers, Atty. Gen., and Henry E. Lutz, Asst. Atty. Gen for the People.
The indictment upon which this case is based was returned against plaintiff in error--to whom we will hereinafter refer as defendant--by a grand jury of the third judicial district. It contained four counts, the first of which, omitting the formal parts, reads as follows: 'That Sam Wright, late of the county of Las Animas, State of Colorado, then and there being a duly appointed, qualified and acting highway overseer, road foreman and supervisor in Commissioners' District No. 3 of Las Animas County, State of Colorado, at and within the said Las Animas County, State of Colorado, did on or about the 4th day of January, 1938, wilfully unlawfully, corruptly and feloniously use, make way with secrete for his own benefit and convert to his own use the sum of $87.00, lawful money of the United States of America, and being a portion of the public funds or moneys of said Las Animas County, Colorado.'
The remaining counts are in similar language, except as to dates and the sums of money alleged to have been converted by the defendant. The second count was dismissed during the trial, on motion of defendant, who was convicted upon the first, third and fourth counts and sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of not less than five nor more than six years. Final determination is made on a motion for supersedeas.
All counts are predicated upon section 262, chapter 48, C.S.A. '35, which reads as follows: 'If any officer appointed or elected by virtue of the constitution of this state, or any law thereof, as an officer, agent or servant of an incorporated city, town, municipal township, school district, or county, or other subdivision of this state, shall convert to his own use in any was whatever, or shall use, by way of investment in any kind of property or merchandise, or shall make way with or secrete any portion of the public funds or moneys, or any valuable securities by him received for safe keeping, disbursement, transfer, or for any other purpose, or which may be in his possession or over which he may have the supervision, care or control, by virtue of his office, agency or service, or under color or pretense thereof, every such officer, agent or servant shall, upon conviction, be punished by imprisonment not less than five (5) years.'
Upon motion of defendant, the people filed a bill of particulars. One of the items relating to count one was, in substance, as follows:
'That Sam Wright, on the 4th day of November, 1937, knowingly, wilfully, fraudulently, corruptly and feloniously presented, or caused to be presented to and approved by the Board of County Commissioners of Las Animas County, Colorado, a certain voucher or claim purporting to be for and on behalf of one Howard Martin, which said voucher or claim is in the words, figures and of the tenor as follows, to-wit:
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trinidad, Colorado Oct. 25 1937
The County of Las Animas
To Howard Martin Dr.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Date Items Warrant No. Amount
--------------------------------------------------------------
25 Labor Single Hand Do Not Write 4.00
26 " " " In This Space 4.00
27 " " " 4.00
28 " " " 4.00
29 " " " 4.00
30 " " " 4.00
Nov. 1 " " " 4.00
2 " " " 4.00
-----------
O. K. by Sam Wright $32.00
--------------------------------------------------------------
State of Colorado
County of Las Animas} ss
I, _____, being first duly sworn, both depose and say that the above amount is legal, just and true, and that the articles furnished and services rendered therein charged for and have been actually and necessarily furnished and rendered to and for said County, and the sum claimed, to-wit: $32. is due and unpaid.
Howard Martin
Subscribed and sworn to Before me this 4 day of Nov. 1937.
'That by reason of the aforesaid acts of said Sam Wright said voucher or claim was presented and allowed by the Board of County Commissioners of said Las Animas County as a just and true account; that said Sam Wright well knew that in truth and in fact that Howard Martin did not during the month of October and November, 1937, perform any labor or services for said Las Animas County, and that said Las Animas County Colorado, was not indebted to said Howard Martin in the sum of $32.00, or any sum whatever, or at all, and the said Sam Wright, by reason of the aforesaid acts and by reason of said false and fraudulent voucher or claim, did, knowingly, wilfully, fraudulently, corruptly and feloniously procure and receive a certain County Warrant, and the proceeds thereof, belonging to said Las Animas County and of the value of $32.00 lawful money of the United States of America.'
The record does not disclose any ruling by the trial court on the sufficiency of the bill of particulars.
Briefly, the facts presented at the trial were to the effect that the defendant was acting as foreman for a few years prior to April, 1938, over a crew of workmen varying in number from 100 to 250, in district No. 3 of Las Animas county, in a territory some 75 miles east of Trinidad, the county seat.
The transaction here involved commenced about in December, 1937, and continued to and included March, 1938. Weekly vouchers were issued by defendant to the men working under him and he each week, for the convenience of the men would take these vouchers to the county seat and cash them at a discount of ten per cent, with the understanding that he would pay the amounts received to the parties whose names appeared on the vouchers. The vouchers were not cashed with public funds of the county, but money was left by those wishing to buy county warrants with the deputy clerk at the office of the county commissioners, which was used to purchase vouchers from any persons presenting them, at their face value, less ten per cent. In the event that no money was left in the office of the county commissioners by prospective purchasers of county warrants, defendant would contact such purchasers in person and receive the money directly from them instead of at the office of the county commissioners. After vouchers were received by the deputy clerk of the board of county commissioners, the clerk would issue a county warrant on the voucher to the party whose money was used in cashing the voucher. Usually, this was a cash warrant, good for its face value and cashable forthwith. The purchaser would receive full cash value for the voucher and warrant. No county warrants were at any time delivered to defendant, and there is no direct evidence that he ever received any of the money obtained on the warrants for his own use. There is testimony by handwriting experts that the signatures to some of the vouchers involved herein were in the handwriting of the defendant, and it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Haesemeyer
...as alleged. State v. Schuling, 216 Iowa 1425, 250 N.W. 588; State v. Essex, 217 Iowa 157, 250 N.W. 895; Wright v. People, 104 Colo. 335, 91 P.2d 499, 123 A.L.R. 474, 477. 42 C.J.S., Indictments and Informations, § 262, states: 'Where an offense may be committed in various ways, the evidence......
-
State v. Meany
...to prove defendant's guilt substantially as alleged.' See, also, State v. Essex, 217 Iowa 157, 250 N.W. 895; Wright v. People, 104 Colo. 335, 91 P.2d 499, 123 A.L.R. 474. In overruling the defendant's demurrer to the indictment, the trial court recognized the above rule and assured defendan......
-
People v. Berry
...means property owned by the public finds further support in cases addressing misuse of public money. In Wright v. People , 104 Colo. 335, 341-42, 91 P.2d 499, 502-03 (1939), the supreme court, applying a related statute (one of those adopted in 1889) barring the use of "public funds or mone......
-
People v. Berry
...18-8-407(1). The phrase "property of the state" clearly means that the property at issue belongs to the state. See Wright v. People , 104 Colo. 335, 91 P.2d 499, 502–03 (1939) (interpreting a related statute that barred the use of "public funds" for private purposes and finding that certain......