People v. McFarland

Supreme Court of Colorado

People v. McFarland

565 P.2d 550, 193 Colo. 1, 1977 Colo. LEXIS 789

Supreme Court of Colorado·Decided March 21, 1977·No. No. 27510·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM

The motion by the Colorado State Public Defender to dismiss this appeal is granted. We feel we should make a few remarks to supplement this order.

In 1975 the defendant was found not guilty of first-degree murder by a jury. The then district attorney appealed alleged errors of law under section 16-12-102, C.R.S. 1973 to the Colorado Court of Appeals. We accepted jurisdiction of the matter. After the matter was at issue, the motion to dismiss was filed.

At least some of the grounds in the motion are meritorious. In a larger sense, we have reached the conclusion that the only thing really to be accomplished by the discussion of alleged error here would be possibly to assuage the feelings of the prosecutor. Irrespective of our disposition of this matter, the defendant cannot be tried again; and anything we might do would simply be an exercise in futility. As stated in People v. Hill, 116 Colo. 436, 181 P.2d 360 (1947), we should only review a case such as this when a material error of law prejudicial to the state has been committed and when our decision will have precedential value. This is not such a case.

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

PER CURIAM

The motion by the Colorado State Public Defender to dismiss this appeal is granted. We feel we should make a few remarks to supplement this order.

In 1975 the defendant was found not guilty of first-degree murder by a jury. The then district attorney appealed alleged errors of law under section 16-12-102, C.R.S. 1973 to the Colorado Court of Appeals. We accepted jurisdiction of the matter. After the matter was at issue, the motion to dismiss was filed.

At least some of the grounds in the motion are meritorious. In a larger sense, we have reached the conclusion that the only thing really to be accomplished by the discussion of alleged error here would be possibly to assuage the feelings of the prosecutor. Irrespective of our disposition of this matter, the defendant cannot be tried again; and anything we might do would simply be an exercise in futility. As stated in People v. Hill, 116 Colo. 436, 181 P.2d 360 (1947), we should only review a case such as this when a material error of law prejudicial to the state has been committed and when our decision will have precedential value. This is not such a case.

People v. McFarland, 565 P.2d 550, 193 Colo. 1, 1977 Colo. LEXIS 789 (Colo. 1977).

Pincite

565 P.2d 550 (People v. McFarland) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related