People v. Blue
2011 WL 915793
Colo. Ct. App.2011Background
- In December 2009, Blue was stopped outside a public library for an ongoing wanted-person investigation.
- Blue gave a false name (Tony Mackie) and claimed no identification; officers later discovered a license and SSN under Tony Blue.
- Blue was charged with one count of attempt to influence a public servant; he moved to dismiss arguing the conduct was false reporting to authorities.
- The trial court dismissed the attempted influence count and reduced it to one misdemeanor count of false reporting to authorities.
- The People filed a notice of interlocutory appeal challenging the dismissal and reduction.
- The appeal proceeded while the remaining proceedings on the charge continued.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of interlocutory appeal | People contend the appeal is timely under Powers/Tuffo reasoning. | Blue contends no timely interlocutory appeal under C.A.R. 4.1/4(b)(3). | Interlocutory appeal timely under applicable rules. |
| Dismissal of attempted influence charge | People may prosecute under multiple statutes for the same conduct. | Blue argues false reporting precludes pursuing attempted influence. | Trial court erred; false reporting is not a specific instance of attempt to influence. |
| Comprehensive regulatory scheme | Specific false reporting statute could preclude general statute. | No comprehensive scheme justifying preemption by the specific statute. | Section 18-8-111 not part of a comprehensive regulatory scheme; exception not met. |
| Equal protection | Charging both offenses could violate equal protection due to penalties/distinctions. | Offsets exist due to different conduct and mens rea; no equal protection violation. | No equal protection violation; distinctions justified; both charges may stand. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Powers, 47 P.3d 686 (Colo. 2002) (timing of reconsideration and interlocutory appeal analyzed)
- People v. Tuffo, 209 P.3d 1226 (Colo. App. 2009) (timeliness of appeal after motion to reconsider allows suspension)
- People v. Zhuk, 239 P.3d 437 (Colo. 2010) (amended rule 26(a) governs computation of ten-day period)
- People v. Tow, 992 P.2d 665 (Colo. App. 1999) (Tow test for comprehensive regulatory schemes applied)
- People v. Bagby, 734 P.2d 1059 (Colo. 1987) (preemption by specific act vs general statute; full police power)
- People v. Warner, 930 P.2d 564 (Colo. 1996) (activity under a specialized regime (gaming) preempts general provisions)
- People v. Westrum, 624 P.2d 1302 (Colo. 1981) (equal protection analysis in statutory classification)
- People v. Blair, 195 Colo. 462 (Colo. 1978) (equal protection requires reasonable distinctions among statutes)
- People v. Hill, 228 P.3d 171 (Colo. App. 2009) (statutory interpretation and harmonious reading principles)