People v. Van De Weghe
312 P.3d 231
Colo. Ct. App.2012Background
- Van De Weghe is a retired Denver police officer who resigned in 1989 but still carries a police badge.
- During a traffic stop, Van De Weghe displayed the badge and claimed he was an active duty officer.
- Deputy asked for employment credentials; Van De Weghe said they were at home and admitted he was not active.
- The deputy testified active-duty officers typically expect a warning; Van De Weghe admitted not active.
- Initially charged with criminal impersonation and traffic offenses; the information was amended to add a count of attempt to influence a public servant; he was convicted on all counts.
- The court’s standard of review for statutory interpretation is de novo, focusing on plain language and legislative intent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the charge of attempt to influence a public servant was proper alongside criminal impersonation. | Van De Weghe argued the impersonation charge subsumed the conduct. | Van De Weghe contends the two charges are duplicative and the latter should not be added. | The charge was proper; impersonation is not a specific instance of attempt to influence. |
| Whether criminal impersonation supplants the general statute under Tow test. | If impersonation is a comprehensive scheme, it could preclude other prosecutions. | Impersonation does not form a comprehensive regulatory scheme and does not preclude broader charges. | Criminal impersonation does not supplant the attempt to influence statute. |
| Whether the criminal impersonation statute would preclude prosecution under the general attempt to influence statute under Tow’s framework. | Impersonation could be seen as within a comprehensive scheme. | Two statutes may cover the same conduct; Tow’s factors must be met. | The Tow factors are not satisfied to preclude concurrent prosecution. |
Key Cases Cited
- Blue v. People, 253 P.3d 1273 (Colo. App. 2011) (false reporting not a specific instance of attempt to influence)
- People v. James, 178 Colo. 401 (Colo. 1972) (single transaction may violate more than one statute)
- People v. Tow, 992 P.2d 665 (Colo. App. 1999) (Tow test for whether a specific statute supplants a general statute)
- People v. Blue, 253 P.3d 1278 (Colo. App. 2011) (true for distinguishing general vs. specific offenses under impairment)
- People v. Bagby, 734 P.2d 1059 (Colo. 1987) (statutory intent required to preclude general statutes)
- People v. Warner, 930 P.2d 564 (Colo. 1996) (elements framed in detail affects Tow prong)