|
592 Colo. 509 PACIFIC REPORTER, 2d SERIES
<br />~:i
<br />i°`
<br />!.
<br />tion-if it is the ruling of the majorin~
<br />opinion-that Linder no circumstances can
<br />courts enjoin a Iegislaticely permitted pub-
<br />lic nuisance.
<br />KELLEI', J., joins in this concurrence.
<br />PRINGLE, Chief Justice (dissenting):
<br />I respectfully dissent. The majoriq'
<br />opinion today announces the rule that any
<br />activity operating under a valid legislative
<br />zoning authority can ncccr lM dcclanvl a
<br />public nuisance by the courts. I cannot
<br />agree. The Lvelfare, the safeq~, and the
<br />health of the public, including its right to
<br />a decent environment, transcends, m m}'
<br />view, the right to engage in a zone per-
<br />mitted business, and where that business is
<br />so conducted as to detrimentally affect the
<br />public health, welfare, ;md safety, includ-
<br />ing the public's right to a decent enriron-
<br />mcnt, and thus become a danger to them,
<br />then it becomes a public nuisance su6iect
<br />to control by the courts.
<br />p ~ lII YYN!!! {151[M
<br />The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado,
<br />Plaintiff-Appellee,
<br />v.
<br />Henry E. THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant.
<br />No. 25285.
<br />Rnpreme C'nu rt n( 1'ulnrado,
<br />In Ih~partment.
<br />April 30, 1973.
<br />Defendant was convicted in the Dis-
<br />trict Court of the City and County of I)en-
<br />vcr, Rubcrt E. nlcLean, J., of robbery, oLnd
<br />he appealed. The Supreme Court, l Iod4es,
<br />L, held that once request came from jury
<br />during its deliberations to be hvnishcd
<br />with "the police officers' report;' reply of
<br />trial court in absence of defense counsel
<br />that "You have the officers' report," re-
<br />ferring to official report filed by investi-
<br />gating officers who questioned c~tin
<br />not rcaersibl}' erroneous, nonvithct
<br />claim that jury achtally wanted notes
<br />by other officers who stopped defy
<br />shortly a([er robbery, where, ass
<br />truth of claim, jury was requesting;
<br />thing +chic~ had not heen admitted •
<br />dcncc and which could not be con=
<br />6y them in nny event, and none of d
<br />ant's fund; mental rights ,sere a((cc
<br />matter what jury had in mind +vhen r
<br />+cas made, and court's reply did not
<br />nor detract from evidence.
<br />:\ifirn cd.
<br />I. Crlminal Law cr 753.2(2)
<br />Trial Curt properly denied r
<br />ant's motion for acquittal so far as
<br />was based nn alleged testimonial die,
<br />ties as to defendant's description, why
<br />crrpancics u~hcthcr causal by srnnr
<br />tain[y about description of dothinC
<br />tain physicil features, or by lack n
<br />nigh obscr vatinn, a•cnt to weight
<br />than to adnissibili[y of identi (ie;u ur
<br />rnonv.
<br />2. Crlminal Law 0741(2)
<br />\Ceighc, if any, to be given to tes
<br />of several ~vitnesscs who described
<br />ant ,vas (or jur}'.
<br />3. Rohhery ~~6, 7
<br />Form x fear is the main elcn
<br />the offense of robbery. 1967 Pcrn
<br />C.R.S., 40-5_1(1).
<br />4. Robhery ~~24(5)
<br />\Vhere victim lesti(ierl in ef(+
<br />he had experienced fear and was int
<br />ed by robber's actions, and jury cool
<br />eels infer chat actions of defenda~
<br />calculated to intimidate victim, r
<br />+vas suffici ant to demonstrate that
<br />berv" took place as contemplated '
<br />ute. 1967 f erm.Supp., C.R.S., del-:
<br />5. Crlminal Law C=X1174(5)
<br />Once request came from jury di
<br />deliberations to be furnished with'
<br />lice of (icer: report," reply of tri.
<br />in absence of defense counsel tha
<br />have the officers' report;' referrin:
<br />
|