Legal Opinion

Prior v. People

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided September 15, 1912No. 7196PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Error to Denver District Court. — PI011. ■ PIubert L,. Shattucic, Judge.

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Gabbert

The only proposition urged by counsel for plaintiff in error is, that the recognizance is void and of no effect, for the *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…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Marmaduke v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado · 1909

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. People v. JunesSupreme Court of Colorado · 1925

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

Powered by the Exa API