DocketNumber: No. 14,648.
Citation Numbers: 110 P.2d 256, 107 Colo. 202
Judges: MR. JUSTICE OTTO BOCK delivered the opinion of the court.
Filed Date: 2/3/1941
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/12/2023
THIS is a criminal proceeding instituted on behalf of the people in connection with an automobile accident occurring within the municipal area of the City and *Page 204 County of Denver. Graham, defendant in error, to whom we hereinafter refer as defendant, was charged, in three counts of an information filed in the district court, with violations of sections 174 and 176, chapter 16, '35 C.S.A., in this: (1) Failing to stop his motor vehicle at the scene of the accident, and as close thereto as possible, and failing to return forthwith and remain at the scene of the accident; (2) failing to give his name, address and registration number of the automobile he was driving; (3) failing to render to the person injured in the accident reasonable assistance or any assistance what ever, although it was apparent that assistance was necessary. To this information, and to each count thereof, defendant filed a motion to quash on the ground that it failed to set forth facts sufficient to constitute an offense under the laws of the state of Colorado. As a basis of said motion it was urged that Denver is a homerule city under section 6, article XX, of the state Constitution, and as such has exclusive jurisdiction in local and municipal affairs; that the offenses charged are local and municipal in character; that in such matters the charter or ordinance of the municipality supersedes, within its territorial limits, any law of the state in conflict therewith; that the offenses charged occurred in connection with the regulation of motor vehicle traffic, and that at the time they occurred the unlawful acts alleged to have been committed by defendant were covered by ordinance of the City and County of Denver. With these contentions the trial court agreed, sustained the motion to quash and entered judgment dismissing the information. To this action of the court the people assign error and seek reversal.
[1-4] The only question with which we are here concerned is whether the derelictions charged in the information are violations of regulations of motor vehicle traffic of a local and municipal nature, over which a home-rule city has exclusive jurisdiction. If not, the general laws of the state apply. Defendant, in support of his *Page 205
contention that the offenses charged constitute regulation of motor vehicle traffic, over which Denver has exclusive jurisdiction, relies primarily on the case ofDenver v. Henry,
The judgment is reversed and the case remanded with directions for further proceedings in accordance with law.
Retallack v. Police Court of City of Colorado Springs , 142 Colo. 214 ( 1960 )
Century Electric Service & Repair, Inc. v. Stone , 193 Colo. 181 ( 1977 )
City of Commerce City v. State , 40 P.3d 1273 ( 2002 )
Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad v. City & County of ... , 673 P.2d 354 ( 1983 )
Woolverton v. City and County of Denver , 146 Colo. 247 ( 1961 )
People v. Hizhniak , 195 Colo. 427 ( 1978 )
City of Canon City v. Merris , 137 Colo. 169 ( 1958 )
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Pikes Peak Rural Transportation ... , 434 P.3d 725 ( 2018 )
Boulder Builders Group v. City of Boulder , 759 P.2d 752 ( 1988 )