gave instruction in Colorado

2019It’s a rational, objective statement of why you feel that something hasn’t been proven, or why you have a doubt.” 45 P.3d at 777 .

2018See, e.g., Barnhisel v. People, 347 P.2d 915, 917 (Colo. 1959) (describing how an instruction, which correctly states the law but is not supported by evidence, erroneously “implies or assumes the existence of evidence not in the record”); Tate v. People, 247 P.2d 665, 672 (Colo. 1952) (“The fact that the trial court gave an instruction on first degree murder when the essential elements are missing in the proof, it must be said that the jury could easily infer by the giving of such an instruction that these elements were present in the case.”). ¶60 And we have recognized that errors regarding j

2018See, e.g. , Barnhisel v. People , 141 Colo. 243 , 347 P.2d 915 , 917 (1959) (describing how an instruction, which correctly states the law but is not supported by evidence, erroneously "implies or assumes the existence of evidence not in the record"); Tate v. People , 125 Colo. 527 , 247 P.2d 665 , 672 (1952) ("The fact that the trial court gave an instruction on first degree murder when the essential elements are missing in the proof, it must be said that the jury could easily infer by the giving of such an instruction that these elements were present in the case."). ¶ 60 And we have recogniz

2015Application 1152 Here, the trial court gave an instruction that tracked the language of seetion 18-1-608, as approved by the supreme court in Bogdanov, 941 P.2d at 254 n.10, and decided to include the "all or part of" language. , 1158 Defendant asserts he "would not have committed any of the essential elements of [the] erime[s]" charged if he "was not the shooter but ... was [instead] the driver." Thus, he argues that the court should not have included the "all or part of" language in the instruction.

2015Blackwell, 251 P.3d at 474 . ■ ¶ 114 At the outset, we note that the trial court gave defense counsel an opportunity to set forth the issues to be addressed at the ex parte hearing before a different judge.

2001Lascano v. Vowell, 940 P.2d 977 (Colo.App.1996). *1043 The instruction at issue stated: “To look in such a manner as to fail to see what must have been plainly visible is to look without a reasonable degree of care and is of no more effect than not to have looked at all.” The trial court gave this instruction, over plaintiffs’ objection, in reference to the facility staffs failure to monitor adequately the sight gauge on the waste fuel tank.

1997Rowe, 856 P.2d at 488 .

1993Defendant’s reliance on People v. Hill, 182 Colo. 253 , 512 P.2d 257 (1973) and People v. Aragon, 665 P.2d 137 (Colo.App.1982) is misplaced.

1993Defendant’s reliance on People v. Hill, 182 Colo. 253 , 512 P.2d 257 (1973) and People v. Aragon, 665 P.2d 137 (Colo.App.1982) is misplaced.

1993Defendant’s reliance on People v. Hill, 182 Colo. 253 , 512 P.2d 257 (1973) and People v. Aragon, 665 P.2d 137 (Colo.App.1982) is misplaced.

1993We see nothing to distinguish this case from People v. Montoya, 640 P.2d 234 (Colo.App.1981), in which we held that when the court gave an instruction on the defendant’s right to remain silent at the first phase of the trial, and reminded the jury that prior instructions remained in effect for the habitual criminal phase, its failure to repeat the instruction concerning the' defendant’s right not to testify at the second phase was not reversible error.

1983We reasoned as follows: “Under the instructions as given a juror could not reasonably conclude that the defendant could possess the specific intent to defraud, which is required for fraud by check, but at the same time be unaware of or mistaken about the adequacy of his checking account funds to pay the checks which he issued.” 643 P.2d at 752 .

1979McGregor v. People, 176 Colo. 309 , 490 P.2d 287 (1971). *326 The trial court gave an instruction consistent with sections 18-1-601 and 18-1-603, C.R.S. 1973.

1979McGregor v. People, 176 Colo. 309 , 490 P.2d 287 (1971). *326 The trial court gave an instruction consistent with sections 18-1-601 and 18-1-603, C.R.S. 1973.

1974It is not error to fail to give a tendered instruction covering the same matter already dealt with in other instructions, Winters v. People, 174 Colo. 91 , 482 P.2d 385 , and we find no error here.

1974It is not error to fail to give a tendered instruction covering the same matter already dealt with in other instructions, Winters v. People, 174 Colo. 91 , 482 P.2d 385 , and we find no error here.

1967In Warner, supra, the instruction given without objection was “laden with the potential for conjecture, misinterpretation and confusion,” and based on assumptions of fact “manifestly outside the realm of possibility.” 134 Colo, at 339, 304 P.2d at 899 .

1966Whether a confession is “voluntary is primarily a question for the trial court.” Mitchell v. People, 76 Colo. 346 , 232 Pac. 685 , 40 A.L.R. 566 ; Osborn v. People, 83 Colo. 4 , 262 Pac. 892 .

1966Whether a confession is “voluntary is primarily a question for the trial court.” Mitchell v. People, 76 Colo. 346 , 232 Pac. 685 , 40 A.L.R. 566 ; Osborn v. People, 83 Colo. 4 , 262 Pac. 892 .

1966Whether a confession is “voluntary is primarily a question for the trial court.” Mitchell v. People, 76 Colo. 346 , 232 Pac. 685 , 40 A.L.R. 566 ; Osborn v. People, 83 Colo. 4 , 262 Pac. 892 .

1966Whether a confession is “voluntary is primarily a question for the trial court.” Mitchell v. People, 76 Colo. 346 , 232 Pac. 685 , 40 A.L.R. 566 ; Osborn v. People, 83 Colo. 4 , 262 Pac. 892 .

1966Whether a confession is “voluntary is primarily a question for the trial court.” Mitchell v. People, 76 Colo. 346 , 232 Pac. 685 , 40 A.L.R. 566 ; Osborn v. People, 83 Colo. 4 , 262 Pac. 892 .

1955In Carr v. Boyd, 123 Colo. 350 , 229 P. (2d) 659 , as appears at page 353, the court gave an instruction on unavoidable accident, and error was assigned.

1955In Carr v. Boyd, 123 Colo. 350 , 229 P. (2d) 659 , as appears at page 353, the court gave an instruction on unavoidable accident, and error was assigned.

1954Confining ourselves for the moment to the phrase "or should have known," it is contended on behalf of plaintiff that this phraseology appears in, and has been approved by, our Court in many decisions, beginning with the case of Clark v. Small, 80 Colo. 227 , 250 P. 385 , and continuing through to the rather recent case of Clark v. Hicks, 127 Colo. 25 , 252 P.2d 1067 .

1954Confining ourselves for the moment to the phrase "or should have known," it is contended on behalf of plaintiff that this phraseology appears in, and has been approved by, our Court in many decisions, beginning with the case of Clark v. Small, 80 Colo. 227 , 250 P. 385 , and continuing through to the rather recent case of Clark v. Hicks, 127 Colo. 25 , 252 P.2d 1067 .

1954Confining ourselves for the moment to the phrase "or should have known," it is contended on behalf of plaintiff that this phraseology appears in, and has been approved by, our Court in many decisions, beginning with the case of Clark v. Small, 80 Colo. 227 , 250 P. 385 , and continuing through to the rather recent case of Clark v. Hicks, 127 Colo. 25 , 252 P.2d 1067 .

1954Confining ourselves for the moment to the phrase "or should have known," it is contended on behalf of plaintiff that this phraseology appears in, and has been approved by, our Court in many decisions, beginning with the case of Clark v. Small, 80 Colo. 227 , 250 P. 385 , and continuing through to the rather recent case of Clark v. Hicks, 127 Colo. 25 , 252 P.2d 1067 .

1952Frady v. People, 96 Colo. 43, 48 , 40 P.2d 606 , 96 A.L.R. 1052 .

1952Frady v. People, 96 Colo. 43, 48 , 40 P.2d 606 , 96 A.L.R. 1052 .

1947We think that when the trial court gave instruction No. 10 on voluntary manslaughter, it fully and adequately presented defendant’s “theory of the case.” The instruction fully covered the subject, and, “once a principle is covered it is no error to refuse to repeat the instruction in other language.” Gould v. People, 89 Colo. 596, 600 , 5 P. (2d) 580 ; Campbell v. People, 55 Colo. 302, 309 , 133 Pac. 1043 ; Jaynes v. People, 44 Colo. 535, 546 , 99 Pac. 325 ; Covington v. People, 36 Colo. 183, 193 , 85 Pac. 832 ; Wymer v. People, 114 Colo. 43, 49 , 160 P. (2d) 987 ; Cahill v. People, 111 Colo.

1947We think that when the trial court gave instruction No. 10 on voluntary manslaughter, it fully and adequately presented defendant’s “theory of the case.” The instruction fully covered the subject, and, “once a principle is covered it is no error to refuse to repeat the instruction in other language.” Gould v. People, 89 Colo. 596, 600 , 5 P. (2d) 580 ; Campbell v. People, 55 Colo. 302, 309 , 133 Pac. 1043 ; Jaynes v. People, 44 Colo. 535, 546 , 99 Pac. 325 ; Covington v. People, 36 Colo. 183, 193 , 85 Pac. 832 ; Wymer v. People, 114 Colo. 43, 49 , 160 P. (2d) 987 ; Cahill v. People, 111 Colo.

1947We think that when the trial court gave instruction No. 10 on voluntary manslaughter, it fully and adequately presented defendant’s “theory of the case.” The instruction fully covered the subject, and, “once a principle is covered it is no error to refuse to repeat the instruction in other language.” Gould v. People, 89 Colo. 596, 600 , 5 P. (2d) 580 ; Campbell v. People, 55 Colo. 302, 309 , 133 Pac. 1043 ; Jaynes v. People, 44 Colo. 535, 546 , 99 Pac. 325 ; Covington v. People, 36 Colo. 183, 193 , 85 Pac. 832 ; Wymer v. People, 114 Colo. 43, 49 , 160 P. (2d) 987 ; Cahill v. People, 111 Colo.

1947We think that when the trial court gave instruction No. 10 on voluntary manslaughter, it fully and adequately presented defendant’s “theory of the case.” The instruction fully covered the subject, and, “once a principle is covered it is no error to refuse to repeat the instruction in other language.” Gould v. People, 89 Colo. 596, 600 , 5 P. (2d) 580 ; Campbell v. People, 55 Colo. 302, 309 , 133 Pac. 1043 ; Jaynes v. People, 44 Colo. 535, 546 , 99 Pac. 325 ; Covington v. People, 36 Colo. 183, 193 , 85 Pac. 832 ; Wymer v. People, 114 Colo. 43, 49 , 160 P. (2d) 987 ; Cahill v. People, 111 Colo.

1947We think that when the trial court gave instruction No. 10 on voluntary manslaughter, it fully and adequately presented defendant’s “theory of the case.” The instruction fully covered the subject, and, “once a principle is covered it is no error to refuse to repeat the instruction in other language.” Gould v. People, 89 Colo. 596, 600 , 5 P. (2d) 580 ; Campbell v. People, 55 Colo. 302, 309 , 133 Pac. 1043 ; Jaynes v. People, 44 Colo. 535, 546 , 99 Pac. 325 ; Covington v. People, 36 Colo. 183, 193 , 85 Pac. 832 ; Wymer v. People, 114 Colo. 43, 49 , 160 P. (2d) 987 ; Cahill v. People, 111 Colo.

1947We think that when the trial court gave instruction No. 10 on voluntary manslaughter, it fully and adequately presented defendant’s “theory of the case.” The instruction fully covered the subject, and, “once a principle is covered it is no error to refuse to repeat the instruction in other language.” Gould v. People, 89 Colo. 596, 600 , 5 P. (2d) 580 ; Campbell v. People, 55 Colo. 302, 309 , 133 Pac. 1043 ; Jaynes v. People, 44 Colo. 535, 546 , 99 Pac. 325 ; Covington v. People, 36 Colo. 183, 193 , 85 Pac. 832 ; Wymer v. People, 114 Colo. 43, 49 , 160 P. (2d) 987 ; Cahill v. People, 111 Colo.