Miller v. People Ex Rel. Edwin

Supreme Court of Colorado

Miller v. People Ex Rel. Edwin

78 P.2d 624, 102 Colo. 259

CourtSupreme Court of Colorado

DecidedApril 18, 1938

DocketNo. 14,247.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 78 P.2d 624 (Miller v. People Ex Rel. Edwin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Colorado primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Miller v. People Ex Rel. Edwin, 78 P.2d 624, 102 Colo. 259 (Colo. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Burke

delivered the opinion of the court.

These parties appeared in reverse order in the trial court where Alex H. Miller was joined with plaintiff in error. They are hereinafter referred to as defendants.

One Ruth Park, a probation officer of Pueblo county, filed a petition against defendants alleging that they “encouraged, caused and contributed to the delinquency” of said Yerna Edwin and Helen Hendrickson, minor girls. This defendant was tried to a jury of six, which found her “guilty * * * as charged in the petition” and the court thereupon sentenced her to one year in the county jail. To review that judgment this writ is prosecuted.

At every proper stage of the proceedings defendant duly objected on the grounds that the charge should have been brought by information filed by the district attorney and that defendant was entitled to a trial by a jury of twelve. Those objections were overruled and those rulings are assigned as error. As to each the Attorney General says, ‘ ‘ In this we think she is correct. ’ ’ He bases this confession of error on the ground that the action is brought under section 67, chapter 33, ’35 C. S. A., and that this is a criminal statute. The present action, as it appears here, is civil, and these assignments, plus the confessions, are equivalent to a stipulation.

The judgment is accordingly reversed.

Mr. Justice Hilliard, Mr. Justice Young and Mr. Justice Bakke concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Chief Justice Burke

delivered the opinion of the court.

These parties appeared in reverse order in the trial court where Alex H. Miller was joined with plaintiff in error. They are hereinafter referred to as defendants.

One Ruth Park, a probation officer of Pueblo county, filed a petition against defendants alleging that they “encouraged, caused and contributed to the delinquency” of said Yerna Edwin and Helen Hendrickson, minor girls. This defendant was tried to a jury of six, which found her “guilty * * * as charged in the petition” and the court thereupon sentenced her to one year in the county jail. To review that judgment this writ is prosecuted.

At every proper stage of the proceedings defendant duly objected on the grounds that the charge should have been brought by information filed by the district attorney and that defendant was entitled to a trial by a jury of twelve. Those objections were overruled and those rulings are assigned as error. As to each the Attorney General says, ‘ ‘ In this we think she is correct. ’ ’ He bases this confession of error on the ground that the action is brought under section 67, chapter 33, ’35 C. S. A., and that this is a criminal statute. The present action, as it appears here, is civil, and these assignments, plus the confessions, are equivalent to a stipulation.

The judgment is accordingly reversed.

Mr. Justice Hilliard, Mr. Justice Young and Mr. Justice Bakke concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 P.2d 624, 102 Colo. 259, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-people-ex-rel-edwin-colo-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack