Legal Opinion

Gavin v. People

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided March 15, 1926No. 11,503PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Denison

Information and conviction for owning, possessing and operating a still. The prisoners bring error.

It is claimed that the so-called Still Act (S. L. 1925, c. 80) is unconstitutional. We have held otherwise. Roark v. People, 79 Colo. 181, 244 Pac. 909, decided at the present term. It is claimed that since the act punishes for the possession of a still “used, designed or intended for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor,” it subjects one in possession of it to punishment without intent, since the manufacturer of it designed it and the possessor may be holding it for a lawful purpose. When…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Mitchell v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado · 1924
  2. Roark v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado · 1926
  3. Moffitt v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado · 1915
  4. Taylor v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado · 1925

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Mitchell v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado · 1970
  2. Colacino v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado · 1927
  3. Hamby v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado · 1942

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API