Prior v. People
Supreme Court of Colorado
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
- Marmaduke v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado · 1909
3Cited by1 opinion
- People v. JunesSupreme Court of Colorado · 1925