Opinion by
Defendant was convicted by a jury of possession of burglar tools contrary to C.R.S. 1963, 40-3-7. We affirm.
Defendant’s primary ground for reversal of his cоnviction is that the information charging him with the above offense did not state facts sufficient to constitute a crime under the statutes of Colorado. Defendant concedes that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the guilty verdict if the information is held to be adequatе.
“STATE OF COLORADO )
COUNTY OF BOULDER )
Twentieth Judicial District in the Court
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE )
OF COLORADO AGAINST ) POSSESSION OF
) BURGLAR TOOLS CHARLES JAMES GNOUT, ) C.R.S. 1963,40-3-7
Defendant. )
“STANLEY F. JOHNSON, District Attorney within and for the Twentieth Judicial District of the State of Colorado in the name and by the authority of the People of the Stаte of Colorado, informs the Court, that on or about the 4th day of Fеbruary, A. D., 1972, at the said county of Boulder in the State of Colorado, CHARLES JAMES GNOUT, JR., did unlаwfully and feloniously have upon him a picklock, key and other instrument and tool, said Charles James Gnout, Jr., then and there having the intent to break and enter into a dwelling house, store, warehouse, shop or other building containing valuable property, and with the intent to steal goods and chattels therein.
contrary to the form of the statutе in such case made and provided, and against the peaсe and dignity of the People of the State of Colorado.
STANLEY F. JOHNSON
/s/ W. Douglas Watson District Attorney”
C.R.S. 1963, 40-3-7 provides:
“If any person shall be found having upon him or her any picklock, crow, key, bit, or other instrument or tool, with intent feloniously to break and entеr into any dwelling house, store, warehouse, shop or other building containing valuable property, or shall be found in any of the aforesaid buildings with intent to steal any goods and chattels, every such persоn so offending shall, on conviction, be deemed a
It is well settled in Colorado that an information is sufficient if it infоrms the defendant of the charges against him so as to enable him tо prepare a defense and plead the judgment in bar of аny further prosecutions for the same offense. People v. Flanders,
Defendant also argues that C.R.S. 1963, 40-3-7, does not proscribe the possession of burglar tools, but is really a vagrancy statute. He bases this argument on the pre-1953 comрilations of the Colorado statutes where the above section was included in offenses against public morality, health, police and peace, rather than the offenses against habitation and buildings. Thus, he argues the information above must have charged vаgrancy rather than possession of burglar tools.
This argument is not persuasive; consequently, we do not accept it. C.R.S. 1963, 135-4-54(2) provides:
“Thе classification and arrangement by chapter, article and numbering systems of sections of Colorado Revised Statutes 1963, as well аs the section headings and source notes, annotations, revisor notes and other editorial matter, form no part of the legislаtive text. Such inclusion is only for the purpose of convenience, orderly arrangement, and information, and therefore, no imрlication or presumption of a legislative constriction is to be drawn therefrom.”
The arrangement of section 40-3-7 in prior compilations is not controlling in construing the section; rather, we must look to the language of the statute itself. The language of C.R.S. 1963, 40-3-7 is expliсit that the legislature proscribed the possession of burglar tools. The reference to vagrancy in the section is therefore mere surplusage and has no effect.
The judgment is affirmed.