lack instruction in Colorado

2015Griffin, 224 P.3d at 298-99 . [ 185 Because defense counsel did not request such an instruction and defendant has not pointed us to any case law or statute that requires such an instruction, we discern no error in the lack of an instruction regarding this evidence.

2014People v. Griffin, 224 P.3d 292, 298 (Colo.App.2009). 159 Here, defendant did not request a limiting instruction, and we discern no error in the lack of such an instruction with respect to this evidence.

2026See Espinoza, 712 P.2d at 478-79 ; People v. Rubanowitz, 688 P.2d 231, 240 (Colo. 1984).

2026The Error Was Not Obvious ¶ 59 We disagree with Montoya’s argument that the trial court plainly erred by not sua sponte instructing the jury that first degree trespass is a lesser included offense of second degree burglary. ¶ 60 Courts presume that the lack of an instruction on a lesser included offense means that the defendant “elected to take his chance on an outright acquittal or conviction of the principal charge.” People v. Romero, 694 P.2d 1256, 1269 (Colo. 1985).

2026See Espinoza, 712 P.2d at 478-79 ; People v. Rubanowitz, 688 P.2d 231, 240 (Colo. 1984).

2026See People v. Relaford, 2016 COA 99 , ¶ 70 n.2 (declining to review a claim of error that was not “supported by any analysis or supporting authority”). 13 ¶ 34 On appeal, Bolden contends that the lack of an instruction on reasonable market value allowed the jury “to ignore the dispositive evidence of retail market value” — i.e., the discounted sale price — and to instead accept the retailer’s ticket price as the value of the items.

2026Co., 602 S.E.2d 307, 311 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004) (holding that the lack of a hearing transcript did not impact the court’s ability to review the appellant’s arguments because “the hearing was not to receive evidence but was to hear argument of counsel”).) ¶ 12 Lewis first contends that the DOC improperly calculated his second degree murder sentence and PED under the one continuous sentence rule.

2024See People v. Coughlin, 304 P.3d 575, 586 (Colo. App. 2011) (holding that it was not error for a court not to give an instruction where a general credibility instruction was given and where neither party took advantage of the lack of instruction during their closing argument). ¶ 38 The combination of these factors convinces us that the admission of the previous convictions without a contemporaneous limiting instruction did not contribute to the jury’s decision to convict Sais of sexual assault and kidnapping.

2024People v. Arguello, 772 P.2d 87, 92 (Colo. 1989).

2019See William v. City of Newport News, 397 S.E.2d 813, 816 (Va. 1990) (employee injured in the course and scope of employment was entitled to UM/UIM benefits “where the injury was inflicted by someone other than a fellow-employee — a stranger to the business”); Henry v. Benyo, 506 S.E.2d 615, 621 (W.

2019See People v. Rodriguez, 794 P.2d 965, 972 (Colo. 1990) (noting that the lack of a defense objection to asserted prosecutorial misconduct might indicate defense counsel’s belief that the live argument, despite its appearance in a cold record, was not overly damaging). ¶31 We need not decide, however, whether the error at issue was obvious because even assuming, for the sake of argument, that it was, on the facts of this case, we cannot say that the error so undermined the fundamental fairness of Robinson’s trial so as to cast serious doubt on the reliability of his judgment of conviction.

2019See William v. City of Newport News, 397 S.E.2d 813, 816 (Va. 1990) (employee injured in the course and scope of employment was entitled to UM/UIM benefits “where the injury was inflicted by someone other than a fellow-employee — a stranger to the business”); Henry v. Benyo, 506 S.E.2d 615, 621 (W.

2016See, e.g., People v. Branch, 805 P.2d 1075, 1084 (Colo. 1991) (requiring trial court to give defendant warnings when he did not have counsel present); People in Interest of A.D.G., 895 P.2d 1067, 1073 (Colo. App. 1994) (holding that court could not force juvenile to submit to state psychological examination after juvenile objected). ¶12 Second, the Sixth Amendment guarantees that a defendant have access to effective assistance of counsel.

2016See, e.g., People v. Branch, 805 P.2d 1075, 1084 (Colo. 1991) (requiring trial court to give defendant warnings when he did not have counsel present); People in Interest of A.D.G., 895 P.2d 1067, 1073 (Colo. App. 1994) (holding that court could not force juvenile to submit to state psychological examination after juvenile objected). ¶12 Second, the Sixth Amendment guarantees that a defendant have access to effective assistance of counsel.

2011See People v. Pineda, 40 P.3d 60, 68 (Colo.App.2001) (harmless error where defense counsel did not object to any unrecorded portions of the trial and could not articulate prejudice).

2003See People v. Thompson, 950 P.2d 608, 614 (Colo.App.1997).