Summary
In People v. May, 182 Colo. 29, 511 P.2d 22 (1973), we pointed out that in an appeal filed by the prosecution, no review of an alleged error of law will be conducted if to do so amounts to no more than a mere academic exercise.
Summary of this case from People v. ShannonOpinion
No. 25451
Decided June 4, 1973.
From the granting of defense motions for judgment of acquittal as to charge of assault with a deadly weapon and simple assault, the People appealed.
No Error in Ruling
1. CRIMINAL LAW — Appellate Review — Purpose. The purpose of appellate review is essentially two-fold: (1) to settle the controversy, and (2) to provide explanation of and to give clarity to questions of law by means of published opinions.
2. ASSAULT AND BATTERY — New Criminal Code — Mooted — Need — Old Assault Statute. Where the People were questioning he trial judge's application of a statute, since amended, to a unique fact situation, changes of sections of the new Colorado Criminal Code (effective July 1, 1972) mooted any need for clarification of elements under the old assault statute.
Appeal from the District Court of El Paso County, Honorable John F. Gallagher, Judge.
Robert L. Russell, District Attorney, Ellen J. Chestnutt, Deputy, for plaintiff-appellant.
Rollie R. Rogers, State Public Defender, J. D. MacFarlane, Chief Deputy, Thomas M. Van Cleave III, Deputy, for defendant-appellee.
The defendant, Johnny Lee May, was charged with two counts of assault with a deadly weapon, C.R.S. 1963, 40-2-34. Trial was to the court. At the close of the People's evidence, the court granted defense motions for judgment of acquittal, both as to the assault charged and the lesser included offense of simple assault. The People appeal.
[1] We noted in People v. Kirkland, 174 Colo. 362, 483 P.2d 1349 (1971), that "the purpose of appellate review is essentially two-fold: (1) to settle the controversy, and (2) to provide explanation of and to give clarity to questions of law by means of published opinions." (See also: People v. Woods, 182 Colo. 3, 510 P.2d 435.) At most, only the second could be involved here, the first having been eliminated by the bar against double jeopardy.
[2] Inasmuch as the People are questioning the trial judge's application of a statute, since amended, to a unique fact situation, it would amount to little more than an academic exercise to analyze the judge's ruling, regardless of whether we agreed or disagreed with his conclusion.
A review of the relevant sections of the new Colorado Criminal Code (effective July 1, 1972) indicates that the changes are such that they moot any need for clarification of elements under the old assault statutes.
We perceive no error in the ruling of the trial court.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE PRINGLE, MR. JUSTICE LEE, and MR. JUSTICE ERICKSON concur.