Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
16 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Colorado courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Ingersollgreen2 sentences1979See People v. Ingersoll, 181 Colo. 1 , 506 P.2d 364 (1973). 1979See People v. Ingersoll, 181 Colo. 1 , 506 P.2d 364 (1973). | 3 | 3 |
People v. DISTRICT CT. FOR SECOND JUD. DIST.green2 sentences1988The decision whether it is appropriate to order a bill of particulars therefore depends on the trial judge’s determination, given the particular facts of a case, “whether the requested information is necessary for the defendant to prepare his defense and to avoid prejudicial surprise.” Id. at 504, 603 P.2d at 129 (emphasis added). 1988The decision whether it is appropriate to order a bill of particulars therefore depends on the trial judge's determination, given the particular facts of a case, "whether the requested information is necessary for the defendant to prepare his defense and to avoid prejudicial surprise. " Id. at 504, 603 P.2d at 129 (emphasis added). | 2 | 4 |
People v. Metcalfgreen2 sentences2020See People v. Garcia, 940 P.2d 357, 362 (Colo. 1997) (noting that the information must “give [the defendant] a fair and adequate opportunity to prepare his defense, and . . . ensure that [the defendant] is not taken by surprise because of evidence offered at the time of trial”); see also Metcalf, 926 P.2d at 139 (explaining that the “purposes served by a criminal information are” in part “to enable the defendant to prepare a defense”). 2018P. 7(e). ¶ 32 The purpose of an information is to “advise the defendant of the nature of the charges, to enable the defendant to prepare a defense, and to protect the defendant from further prosecution for the same offense.” People v. Metcalf, 926 P.2d 133, 139 (Colo. App. 1996); accord People v. Williams, 984 P.2d 56, 60 (Colo. 1999). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Quintanogreen2 sentences2007In ruling on this request, "the trial court should consider whether the requested information is necessary for the defendant to prepare his defense or to protect against subsequent prosecution." People v. Quintano, 81 P.3d 1093, 1096 (Colo.App.2003), aff'd, 105 P.3d 585 (Colo.2005). 2007In ruling on this request, “the trial court should consider whether the requested information is necessary for the defendant to prepare his defense or to protect against subsequent prosecution.” People v. Quintano, 81 P.3d 1093, 1096 (Colo.App.2003), aff'd, 105 P.3d 585 (Colo.2005). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Garciagreen1 sentence2020See People v. Garcia, 940 P.2d 357, 362 (Colo. 1997) (noting that the information must “give [the defendant] a fair and adequate opportunity to prepare his defense, and . . . ensure that [the defendant] is not taken by surprise because of evidence offered at the time of trial”); see also Metcalf, 926 P.2d at 139 (explaining that the “purposes served by a criminal information are” in part “to enable the defendant to prepare a defense”). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Williamsgreen1 sentence2018P. 7(e). ¶ 32 The purpose of an information is to “advise the defendant of the nature of the charges, to enable the defendant to prepare a defense, and to protect the defendant from further prosecution for the same offense.” People v. Metcalf, 926 P.2d 133, 139 (Colo. App. 1996); accord People v. Williams, 984 P.2d 56, 60 (Colo. 1999). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Manzanaresgreen1 sentence2011People v. Manzanares, 942 P.2d 1235, 1242 (Colo.App.1996). | 1 | 1 |
Kogan v. Peoplegreen1 sentence1990Id. at 81 , 612 P.2d at 523 ; see also Kogan v. People, 756 P.2d 945 (Colo.1988) (relying solely on the defense preparation rationale because trial was to the court). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wong Tai v. United States
green
2 sentences1979Wong Tai v. United States, 273 U.S. 77 , 47 S.Ct. 300 , 71 L.Ed. 545 (1927); United States v. Roya, 574 F.2d 386 (7th Cir. 1978); Balltrip v. People, supra. The bill does not require a detailed disclosure of the evidence upon which the prosecution expects to rely. 1979Wong Tai v. United States, 273 U.S. 77 , 47 S.Ct. 300 , 71 L.Ed. 545 (1927); United States v. Roya, 574 F.2d 386 (7th Cir. 1978); Balltrip v. People, supra. The bill does not require a detailed disclosure of the evidence upon which the prosecution expects to rely. | 3 | 1979–1979 |
United States v. Ray Roya
green
2 sentences1979Wong Tai v. United States, 273 U.S. 77 , 47 S.Ct. 300 , 71 L.Ed. 545 (1927); United States v. Roya, 574 F.2d 386 (7th Cir. 1978); Balltrip v. People, supra. The bill does not require a detailed disclosure of the evidence upon which the prosecution expects to rely. 1979Wong Tai v. United States, 273 U.S. 77 , 47 S.Ct. 300 , 71 L.Ed. 545 (1927); United States v. Roya, 574 F.2d 386 (7th Cir. 1978); Balltrip v. People, supra. The bill does not require a detailed disclosure of the evidence upon which the prosecution expects to rely. | 3 | 1979–1979 |
Quintano v. People
green
2 sentences2007In ruling on this request, "the trial court should consider whether the requested information is necessary for the defendant to prepare his defense or to protect against subsequent prosecution." People v. Quintano, 81 P.3d 1093, 1096 (Colo.App.2003), aff'd, 105 P.3d 585 (Colo.2005). 2007In ruling on this request, “the trial court should consider whether the requested information is necessary for the defendant to prepare his defense or to protect against subsequent prosecution.” People v. Quintano, 81 P.3d 1093, 1096 (Colo.App.2003), aff'd, 105 P.3d 585 (Colo.2005). | 2 | 2007–2010 |
People v. District Court for the Second Judicial District
green
2 sentences2004Woertman v. People, supra; People v. District Court, 198 Colo. 501 , 603 P.2d 127 (1979). 1983A bill of particulars must provide such information requested by defendant as is “necessary for the defendant to prepare his defense and to avoid prejudicial surprise.” People v. District Court, 198 Colo. 501 , 603 P.2d 127 (1979). | 2 | 1983–2004 |
Erickson v. People
green
2 sentences2004Erickson v. People, 951 P.2d 919 (Colo. 1998). 2004Erickson v. People, 951 P.2d 919 (Colo.1998). | 2 | 2004–2004 |
People v. Thomas
green
2 sentences1996People v. Thomas, 832 P.2d 990 (Colo.App.1991). 1996People v. Thomas, 832 P.2d 990 (Colo.App.1991). | 2 | 1996–1996 |
People v. Estorga
green
2 sentences1990Id. at 81 , 612 P.2d at 523 ; see also Kogan v. People, 756 P.2d 945 (Colo.1988) (relying solely on the defense preparation rationale because trial was to the court). 1990Id. at 81 , 612 P.2d at 523 ; see also Kogan v. People, 756 P.2d 945 (Colo.1988) (relying solely on the defense preparation rationale because trial was to the court). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Billingsley v. United States
green
2 sentences1988If, however, information about the time when the alleged crime was committed is necessary to enable the defendant to prepare his defense or to guard against a subsequent prosecution for the same crime, such information must be provided. 2 Wharton’s § 355; Billingsly v. United States, 16 F.2d 754 (8th Cir.1926); State v. Hicks, 666 S.W.2d 54 (Tenn.1984). 1988If, however, information about the time when the alleged crime was committed is necessary to enable the defendant to prepare his defense or to guard against a subsequent prosecution for the same crime, such information must be provided. 2 Wharton's § 355; Billingsly v. United States, 16 F.2d 754 (8th Cir.1926); State v. Hicks, 666 S.W.2d 54 (Tenn.1984). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
State v. Hicks
green
2 sentences1988If, however, information about the time when the alleged crime was committed is necessary to enable the defendant to prepare his defense or to guard against a subsequent prosecution for the same crime, such information must be provided. 2 Wharton’s § 355; Billingsly v. United States, 16 F.2d 754 (8th Cir.1926); State v. Hicks, 666 S.W.2d 54 (Tenn.1984). 1988If, however, information about the time when the alleged crime was committed is necessary to enable the defendant to prepare his defense or to guard against a subsequent prosecution for the same crime, such information must be provided. 2 Wharton's § 355; Billingsly v. United States, 16 F.2d 754 (8th Cir.1926); State v. Hicks, 666 S.W.2d 54 (Tenn.1984). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.