Prior v. People

Supreme Court of Colorado

Prior v. People

53 Colo. 359

CourtSupreme Court of Colorado

DecidedSeptember 15, 1912

DocketNo. 7196

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 53 Colo. 359 (Prior v. People) 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

Prior v. People, 53 Colo. 359 (Colo. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Gabbert

delivered the opinion of the court:

The only proposition urged by counsel for plaintiff in error is, that the recognizance is void and of no effect, for the [361]*361reason that it fails upon its face to either designate or describe any crime known to the law. When an offense is designated by statute by name, it is sufficient to so designate it in a recognizance. Marmeduke v. People, 45 Colo. 357. Our criminal statutes — secs. 1332-1333, Mills’ — name and recognize confidence game as an offense.

Waters v. People, 4 C. A. 97, is not in point. In that case, the recognizance considered neither designated an offense known to the law, nor stated facts from which it appeared that a criminal offense had been committed.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Chief Justice Campbell and Mr. Justice Hill concur.

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

Mr. Justice Gabbert

delivered the opinion of the court:

The only proposition urged by counsel for plaintiff in error is, that the recognizance is void and of no effect, for the [361]*361reason that it fails upon its face to either designate or describe any crime known to the law. When an offense is designated by statute by name, it is sufficient to so designate it in a recognizance. Marmeduke v. People, 45 Colo. 357. Our criminal statutes — secs. 1332-1333, Mills’ — name and recognize confidence game as an offense.

Waters v. People, 4 C. A. 97, is not in point. In that case, the recognizance considered neither designated an offense known to the law, nor stated facts from which it appeared that a criminal offense had been committed.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Chief Justice Campbell and Mr. Justice Hill concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 Colo. 359, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/prior-v-people-colo-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack