*1 been litigation involving par- in a
ty directly ques- affected in services The PEOPLE generally, g., City tion. e. of Loveland Plaintiff-Appellant, P.U.C., P.U.C., City County of Denver v. Larry LUTTRELL, F. Colo. Robinson v. Defendant-Appellee, City Boulder, are, most, The appellants here at Larry Luttrell, Howard F. Sauer F. indirectly affected. Defendants-Appellees, appel- We therefore conclude that David A. Hamilton and F. standing lants lack to raise this issue. Sauer, Defendants-Appellees, Sauer, Howard F. David A. Hamilton and V. Larry Luttrell, F. appellees cross-appeal assert Defendants-Appellees, interlocutory certain orders entered improper. Specifically, court were Larry F. Labriola and F. they contend that to the extent the lower Luttrell, Defendants-Appellees, jurisdiction its based to enter order staying the rate increase Larry Luttrell, C.R.C.P. Joe Williams and F. error, it was in the trial court’s Defendants-Appellees, stay order comply failed to Ralph Larry Luttrell, E. Peck and F. security requirements notice and of C.R. Defendants-Appellees, C.P. We do not resolve issues these because are now moot. Larry Luttrell, Defendant-Appellee, appellees acknowledge, they As the have Larry Luttrell, David A. Hamilton and already order, stay but, been relieved of Defendants-Appellees. reason, practical have to im- declined pose retroactive collection of the increased Declaring principles or rates. rules of Court of context where cannot affect matter in issue is not our function and nothing present would add ease. See Court, Colo., Barnes (1980); Bestway Disposal P.U.C., disposition appeal our and the appellees
absence of harm to the from our moot,
treatment of their claim as we de-
cline to consider the merits of that issue. judgment of the district court is af-
firmed. *2 Sauer, Montrose, pro se. Greenacre, R. & Charles Green-
Durham acre, Montrose, defendant-appellee for David A. Hamilton. Willett, Delta, defendant- for
Charles appellee F. Labriola.
Brooks, Brooks, Brooks, A. Miller & John Montrose, for Joe defendant-appellee Wil- liams. Brown, Tweedell,
Brown & Robert G. Delta, defendant-appellee Ralph E. for Peck. Justice,
DUBOFSKY, Opin- delivered ion of the Court. People appeal court’s1
The
jury
separate grand
of
indict-
dismissal
nine
16-5-204(4)(k),
under section
C.R.S.
ments
8)2.
(1978
Repl.Vol.
Because
dis-
disputed is-
resolved
determining
of fact and law
sues
probable cause,
of
we reverse
absence
court’s dismissal
indictments,
on
jury
The
returned
10, 1980, charged the
defendants
June
Jr.,
Wendt,
Atty.,
John A. F.
Dist.
Mi-
committing
public proper-
embezzlement of
Delta,
Argali, Deputy
Atty.,
chael
for
Dist.
18-8-407,
(1978
ty under section
C.R.S.1973
plaintiff-appellant.
8)3,
Repl.Vol.
first-degree official miscon-
18-8-404, C.R.S.1973
duct under
section
Palo,
Arnold,
Traylor,
Gary R.
Cowan &
8)4,
theft,
Junction,
(1978 Repl.Vol.
Cowan,
Traylor,
for
Robert
Grand
8)5.
defendant-appellee Larry F. Luttrell.
judge
appointed
any
The
public
1.
Chief Justice
or to
use other than the
use autho-
judges
by
of
Dis-
guilty
when the
the Seventh Judicial
rized
of embezzlement
of
Colo.Const.,
disqualified
trict
VI,
Art.
public property
themselves.
....
5(3).
Sec.
provides
4. Section 18-8 —104
that:
16-5-204(4)(k),
Section
(1)
public
degree
A
servant commits first
of-
Repl.Vol. 8), provides:
if,
ficial
with intent
to obtain a
misconduct
(k)
before which the
...,
knowingly:
benefit
himself
he
tried
dismiss
defendant
is to be
shall
dicted
(a)
relating
an act
to his office
Commits
dis-
if such
constituting an
of
but
unauthorized exercise
finds,
filing
motion
of a
trict court
function;
his official
or
by
upon the
the indicted defendant based
argument
fur-
record without
or
(c)
lawfully adopt-
Violates
statute or
evidence,
finding
grand jury
of
ther
regulation relating
or
his
ed rule
office....
supported
rec-
cause
is not
provides
Section 18-4—401
that:
ord.
407(1) provides that:
(1)
person
A
when he know-
3. Section
commits theft
18-8—
lawfully
any-
ingly
un-
or
control over
who
obtains or exercises
public
[E]very
servant
thing
. ..
possession of
of another without authoriza-
lawfully
value
comes into
being
tion,
description,
deception, and:
or
threat or
property of whatever
any political
(a)
person per-
subdi-
deprive
of Intends to
the other
property
the state
knowingly con-
manently
state,
thing
who
of the use or
benefit
vision
value;
use
own
to his
....
property
. .
such
verts
presentation
of evidence before
not be
reviewed
court is the
days.
consumed three
The wit-
failure of a trial court to follow the rules
nesses included two Colorado Bureau of
governing
In-
preliminary hearing. People
vestigation agents,
defendants,
one of the
ex rel.
Leidner
employees of the
Montrose School District
The district
responsible
accounting
RE-1J
pur-
reviewing
court function in
*3
chases, and four members or former mem-
record, as
authorized
bers of the Board of
They
Education.
testi-
204(4)(k),
(1978 Repl.Vol. 8),
fied that
tires were distributed to some
prelimi-
similar to the role of the
at a
school board members and district adminis-
nary hearing in determining the existence
personal
trators
use on
vehicles and
probable
People
absence of
v.
that,
practice
discovered,
until the
was
in Summers,
445,
(1979).
197 Colo.
One of the light most fa- Viewed in the proceedings. will that a cause determination prosecution, the voluminous vorable to adequately supports case
evidence in this George E. and Zelda A. SHAKLEE when all infer- indictments Shaklee, Petitioners, prosecution. are drawn in favor ences Accordingly, we reverse the order of the The DISTRICT COURT In and For the court and reinstate the indictments. WELD, COUNTY OF HODGES, J.,C. dissents. Althoff, and the Honorable John J. one Judges thereof, Respondents. HODGES, Justice, dissenting: Chief respectfully I dissent. Section 16-5-
204(4)(k), Repl.Vol. 8) spe- Court cifically calls the district court to re- view a record and to dismiss an *4 supported by probable purpose obvious of the statute is to Rehearing Denied Nov. screen out cases which the trial court finds are without cause. This has the
salutary protecting effect of an accused and
promoting judicial economy by purging the
trial court fatally docket of a weak case. preliminary hearing procedure is in- accomplish purpose.
tended to the same Quinn, case,
In this the trial court reviewed the
grand jury record and found “[t]here
total lack of evidence in the
jury’s testimony that could indicate finding,
criminal offense.” On this then dismissed the view,
my record reveals the reasonably
kind of evidence which can be
interpreted showing as no more than a relationship ap-
creditor-debtor between the
pellees and the school district. If this is
what the evidence revealed to the trial
judge, it seems obvious that he did not subject
believe the evidence was of criminal intent.
reasonable inference On basis, perceive it is difficult for me to appellate can
how hold that which,
are some kind of inferences never-
theless, gleaned can be from the evidence against appellees.
and must be resolved record,
On this I do not believe an should countermand the trial court.
Accordingly, I would affirm the trial judgment,
court’s because under the record case, view, my
of this it is do otherwise nugatory
effectively renders as section 16— 8).
5-204(4)(k),