Court Opinion

ID: 9558133
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:03:18.605531+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:08:21.646341
License: Public Domain

BERMAN, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
Crim.P. 2 requires that the rules be “construed to secure simplicity in procedure, fairness in administration, and the elimination of unjustifiable expense and delay.” Section 16-5-202, C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl. Vol. 8), provides in pertinent part that an “information is sufficient if it can be understood therefrom: (c) [t]hat the offense was committed within the jurisdiction of the court, or is triable therein.” See also Crim.P. 7(2)(III).
Each of counts one through five of the ■information charged offenses in violation of § 12-22-322(l)(c) and 12-22-322(2)(c), C.R. S.1973 (1978 RepLVol. 5). The amendment of counts six through ten added charges of violation of sections 12-22-302 and 12-22-322(2)(b), C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl.Vol. 5). The five amendments in question were made by written motion headed with the caption “IN THE DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF PITKIN STATE OF COLORADO” and the affidavit attached and sworn to by the deputy district attorney was also headed by the caption “STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF PITKIN.”
Since the amendment to the information was granted, we are required to read the information and the amendments together. Viewed together there can be no question that the court had jurisdiction of the crimes and that they were committed in Pitkin County, Colorado. The caption may be used to determine the venue and jurisdiction. See Balfe v. People, 66 Colo. 94, 179 P. 137 (1919). “[Wjhere, as in this case, there is no suggestion that the venue was improper or improperly proved, and no showing of prejudice to the defendant, we see no reason to refuse to read the caption as part of the complaint. So read, the complaint sufficiently designates the county in which the offense was alleged to have been committed.” People v. Williams, 37 Ill.2d 521, 229 N.E.2d 495 (1967).
If any question still exists as to the jurisdiction of the court, the citation in each of the amended counts to the specific sections of the law which are claimed to have been violated should resolve any doubt that the violations occurred in Colorado and in Pit-kin County. Our criminal statutes do not normally provide for punishment of crimes committed out of this state except for punishment as an habitual criminal, § 16-13-101, C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl.Vol. 8), or in the case of uniform laws such as the Revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act, § 14-5-101 et seq., C.R.S.1973.
I would affirm the judgment in its entirety-