Case Title: Biddle v. District Court in & for Fifteenth Jud. Dist.

Citation: 516 P.2d 645

Docket Number: 

State: colorado

Court: Colorado Supreme Court

Date: 1973-12-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
516 P.2d 645 (1973) Darol C. BIDDLE, Special Prosecutor in and for the Fifteenth Judicial District of the State of Colorado, Petitioner, v. DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR the FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, and the Honorable Robert Sanderson, District Judge within and for the Fifteenth Judicial District of the State of Colorado, Respondents, and William I. Howard, Intervenor. No. 26188. Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc. December 3, 1973. Rehearing Denied December 24, 1973. Petitioner, pro se. Respondents, pro se. Alperstein, Plaut & Barnes p. c., R. G. Busch, Lakewood, for intervenor. GROVES, Justice. The intervenor is sheriff of Cheyenne County. He was charged in the respondent court with menacing the marshall of Cheyenne Wells with a deadly weapon (a felony) and criminal mischief (a misdemeanor). 1971 Perm.Supp., C.R.S.1963, 40-3-206 and 40-4-501. At the conclusion of a preliminary hearing the court found that there was no probable cause to believe that the sheriff committed the felony and that there was probable cause as to the misdemeanor. The felony count was dismissed. On application we issued a rule for the respondents to show cause why the felony count should not be reinstated. We now make the rule absolute. The only witness at the preliminary hearing was the marshall. He testified that the sheriff drove to Cheyenne Wells, parked his vehicle and came over to the marshall's car. The record continues as follows: None of the testimony of the marshall was in conflict with that above quoted and, as indicated, his testimony constituted all of the evidence in the case. The principal argument of the sheriff is that the court was not bound to accept the testimony of the witness and that it was at liberty to disbelieve it. This might be a good argument if that were the reason for the finding of the court. As that was not the reason for the finding, we do not pass upon the soundness of the argument. The felony statute reads as follows: The respondent district judge appearing pro se answered the rule to show cause. This answer sets forth the following matters: The matter of the marshall's credibility is not mentioned in the respondents' answer. We say, therefore, that the principal argument of the sheriff as to veracity is not applicable in this case. Items 1 and 2 in the respondents' answer, as well as the argument submitted by the sheriff, are without merit. In finding that the elements of the felony were not shown, that the marshall's fear was not of imminent or immediate injury and that there was no probable cause to justify the *647 prosecution of the sheriff, there was an abuse of discretion. The rule is made absolute and the respondents are ordered to reinstate the felony count.