Court Opinion

ID: 9864944
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 16:17:47.031865+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:36:13.100041
License: Public Domain

Mr. Chief Justice Burke
dissenting.
I am unable to concur in the disposition of this cause, although in accord with the holding that the admitted evidence was within the statute. The .order “disapproving” should be “Judgment Reversed.” The “disapproval” is clearly intended as a conclusion, or intimation, that some question of jeopardy is before us. Such is not, and could not be, the fact. That question could only arise when, if ever, the state attempted to retry the defendant. Moreover, since we are merely advising and not deciding I insist we should finish the task. Any careful reading of section 49, chapter 2, page 79, S.L. ’41, and *538section 500, chapter 48 ’35 C.S.A., will demonstrate that the attorney general is the only official authorized to prosecute this writ. Hence, the reasons being stated, the order should be “Writ Dismissed.”
Mr. Justice Hilliard's opinion.
On the theory that defendant in error had violated section 317, chapter 48, ’35 C.S.A., an information “charging,” to quote from the district attorney’s brief, “misrepresentation to effect sales and conspiracy to make representations to effect sales,” was filed against defendant. At the conclusion of the people’s evidence on trial to a jury, the court, moved thereto by counsel for the accused, directed a verdict of not guilty, which was returned, received and recorded in due form. The district attorney, seeking review of that ruling, invokes section 500, chapter 48, ’35 C.S.A., which provides inter alia: “Writs of error shall lie on behalf of the state, or the people, to review decisions of the trial court in any criminal case upon question of law arising upon the trial, motions to quash, demurrers, pleas in bar, pleas in abatement, motions in arrest of judgment, or where a statute is declared unconstitutional. * * *; provided, that nothing in this section shall be construed so as to place a defendant in jeopardy a second time- for the same offense.”
Considering that heretofore we have said that where a criminal information has been filed against a party, trial had, and acquittal directed, as here, a writ of error to review the proceedings should be dismissed, for that, since “by express terms of the statute, §1997, supra, [§500, c. 48, ’35 C.S.A.] [he] may not be placed in jeopardy a second time for the same offense,” it becomes unnecessary to determine the question sought to be presented. People v. Denver Athletic Club, 63 Colo. 189, 164 Pac. 1158. “When the court directs a verdict of not guilty, * * * such direction is equal to acquittal and will support a plea of former jeopardy.” Castner v. People, *53967 Colo. 327, 184 Pac. 387. See, also, Davidson v. People, 64 Colo. 281, 170 Pac. 962. Not only does the statute of the people’s reliance provide that “nothing” therein “shall be construed so as to place a defendant'in jeopardy a second time for the same offense,” but, “Section 18, art. 2, of our bill of rights, protects a person against a second jeopardy for the same offense.” Roland v. People, 23 Colo. 283, 47 Pac. 269. Applying the doctrine of the foregoing authorities to the inquiry here, and regardless of what' conclusion our - study of the record might lead us to entertain, defendant would not be subject to further prosecution. The Constitution provides an insurmountable barrier against it, and the statute, which provides for limited inquiries on error in behalf of the people in relation to criminal proceedings, emphasizes that nothing therein shall work a different result. In addition to the foregoing, I concur in Mr. Chief Justice Burke’s opinion that the writ of error here was not competently presented.
Therefore, not only would futility attend our labors in any such examination, but we have held in like cases that a writ of error on the part of the people will not be entertained. People v. Kippy, 64 Colo. 597, 173 Pac. 395; People v. Hopkins, 70 Colo. 163, 197 Pac. 1020. In those cases, the writs of error were dismissed. Like order should be entered here'.