refused instruction in Colorado

1965In Lutz v. People, 133 Colo. 229 , 293 P.2d 646 , it was said: " * * * No error is committed if a trial court refuses to give a requested instruction, but covers the subject matter of the refused instruction by one which is submitted to the jury. * * *" This language was drawn from the rule announced in Reigan v. People, 120 Colo. 472 , 210 P.2d 991 .

1965In Lutz v. People, 133 Colo. 229 , 293 P.2d 646 , it was said: " * * * No error is committed if a trial court refuses to give a requested instruction, but covers the subject matter of the refused instruction by one which is submitted to the jury. * * *" This language was drawn from the rule announced in Reigan v. People, 120 Colo. 472 , 210 P.2d 991 .

1913An imposing array of authority lays down the rule that expert testimony is to be considered the same as any other, and that the jurors’ attention should not be called specifically to such testimony, either in the way of discrediting it or giving it undue prominence. — Brickwood’s .Sackett on Instructions, Vol. 1, Sec. 126; Rivard v. Rivard, 109 Mich., 98 , 66 N. W., 681 , 63 Am.

1913An imposing array of authority lays down the rule that expert testimony is to be considered the same as any other, and that the jurors’ attention should not be called specifically to such testimony, either in the way of discrediting it or giving it undue prominence. — Brickwood’s .Sackett on Instructions, Vol. 1, Sec. 126; Rivard v. Rivard, 109 Mich., 98 , 66 N. W., 681 , 63 Am.

1904“In construing a charge, each instruction is to be considered in connection with the entire charge, and, if considered as a whole, this court is satisfied that the jury was not improperly advised as to any material point in the case, the judgment will not be reversed on the ground of an erroneous charge.”— McClelland v. Burns, 5 Colo. 391 , 395; Dozenback v. Raymer, 13 Colo. 451, 455 ; Stewart v. Kindall, 15 Colo. 540 , 543; The Little Dorritt Gold Mining Co. v. Arapahoe Gold Mining Co., 30 Colo. 431, 439 ; Davis v. Shepherd, 31 Colo. 141, 151 .

1904“In construing a charge, each instruction is to be considered in connection with the entire charge, and, if considered as a whole, this court is satisfied that the jury was not improperly advised as to any material point in the case, the judgment will not be reversed on the ground of an erroneous charge.”— McClelland v. Burns, 5 Colo. 391 , 395; Dozenback v. Raymer, 13 Colo. 451, 455 ; Stewart v. Kindall, 15 Colo. 540 , 543; The Little Dorritt Gold Mining Co. v. Arapahoe Gold Mining Co., 30 Colo. 431, 439 ; Davis v. Shepherd, 31 Colo. 141, 151 .

1904“In construing a charge, each instruction is to be considered in connection with the entire charge, and, if considered as a whole, this court is satisfied that the jury was not improperly advised as to any material point in the case, the judgment will not be reversed on the ground of an erroneous charge.”— McClelland v. Burns, 5 Colo. 391 , 395; Dozenback v. Raymer, 13 Colo. 451, 455 ; Stewart v. Kindall, 15 Colo. 540 , 543; The Little Dorritt Gold Mining Co. v. Arapahoe Gold Mining Co., 30 Colo. 431, 439 ; Davis v. Shepherd, 31 Colo. 141, 151 .

1904“In construing a charge, each instruction is to be considered in connection with the entire charge, and, if considered as a whole, this court is satisfied that the jury was not improperly advised as to any material point in the case, the judgment will not be reversed on the ground of an erroneous charge.”— McClelland v. Burns, 5 Colo. 391 , 395; Dozenback v. Raymer, 13 Colo. 451, 455 ; Stewart v. Kindall, 15 Colo. 540 , 543; The Little Dorritt Gold Mining Co. v. Arapahoe Gold Mining Co., 30 Colo. 431, 439 ; Davis v. Shepherd, 31 Colo. 141, 151 .

1904“In construing a charge, each instruction is to be considered in connection with the entire charge, and, if considered as a whole, this court is satisfied that the jury was not improperly advised as to any material point in the case, the judgment will not be reversed on the ground of an erroneous charge.”— McClelland v. Burns, 5 Colo. 391 , 395; Dozenback v. Raymer, 13 Colo. 451, 455 ; Stewart v. Kindall, 15 Colo. 540 , 543; The Little Dorritt Gold Mining Co. v. Arapahoe Gold Mining Co., 30 Colo. 431, 439 ; Davis v. Shepherd, 31 Colo. 141, 151 .

1904“In construing a charge, each instruction is to be considered in connection with the entire charge, and, if considered as a whole, this court is satisfied that the jury was not improperly advised as to any material point in the case, the judgment will not be reversed on the ground of an erroneous charge.”— McClelland v. Burns, 5 Colo. 391 , 395; Dozenback v. Raymer, 13 Colo. 451, 455 ; Stewart v. Kindall, 15 Colo. 540 , 543; The Little Dorritt Gold Mining Co. v. Arapahoe Gold Mining Co., 30 Colo. 431, 439 ; Davis v. Shepherd, 31 Colo. 141, 151 .

1903In such condition of the record as presented by the abstract, — upon which we have the right to rely —we cannot say that the refused instruction was not covered by those given by the court, therefore we cannot rule that the court erred in its refusal to give the instruction tendered. — Court of Appeals Rules 1901, No. 14; Woods v. Chellew, 15 Colo. App. 368, 370 , 62 Pac. 230 ; Dawson v. Coston, 18 Colo. 493, 495 , 33 Pac. 189 ; McQuown v. Cavanaugh, 14 Colo. 188, 190 , 23 Pac. 341 .

1903In such condition of the record as presented by the abstract, — upon which we have the right to rely —we cannot say that the refused instruction was not covered by those given by the court, therefore we cannot rule that the court erred in its refusal to give the instruction tendered. — Court of Appeals Rules 1901, No. 14; Woods v. Chellew, 15 Colo. App. 368, 370 , 62 Pac. 230 ; Dawson v. Coston, 18 Colo. 493, 495 , 33 Pac. 189 ; McQuown v. Cavanaugh, 14 Colo. 188, 190 , 23 Pac. 341 .

1903In such condition of the record as presented by the abstract, — upon which we have the right to rely —we cannot say that the refused instruction was not covered by those given by the court, therefore we cannot rule that the court erred in its refusal to give the instruction tendered. — Court of Appeals Rules 1901, No. 14; Woods v. Chellew, 15 Colo. App. 368, 370 , 62 Pac. 230 ; Dawson v. Coston, 18 Colo. 493, 495 , 33 Pac. 189 ; McQuown v. Cavanaugh, 14 Colo. 188, 190 , 23 Pac. 341 .

1903In such condition of the record as presented by the abstract, — upon which we have the right to rely —we cannot say that the refused instruction was not covered by those given by the court, therefore we cannot rule that the court erred in its refusal to give the instruction tendered. — Court of Appeals Rules 1901, No. 14; Woods v. Chellew, 15 Colo. App. 368, 370 , 62 Pac. 230 ; Dawson v. Coston, 18 Colo. 493, 495 , 33 Pac. 189 ; McQuown v. Cavanaugh, 14 Colo. 188, 190 , 23 Pac. 341 .

1903In such condition of the record as presented by the abstract, — upon which we have the right to rely —we cannot say that the refused instruction was not covered by those given by the court, therefore we cannot rule that the court erred in its refusal to give the instruction tendered. — Court of Appeals Rules 1901, No. 14; Woods v. Chellew, 15 Colo. App. 368, 370 , 62 Pac. 230 ; Dawson v. Coston, 18 Colo. 493, 495 , 33 Pac. 189 ; McQuown v. Cavanaugh, 14 Colo. 188, 190 , 23 Pac. 341 .

1903In such condition of the record as presented by the abstract, — upon which we have the right to rely —we cannot say that the refused instruction was not covered by those given by the court, therefore we cannot rule that the court erred in its refusal to give the instruction tendered. — Court of Appeals Rules 1901, No. 14; Woods v. Chellew, 15 Colo. App. 368, 370 , 62 Pac. 230 ; Dawson v. Coston, 18 Colo. 493, 495 , 33 Pac. 189 ; McQuown v. Cavanaugh, 14 Colo. 188, 190 , 23 Pac. 341 .

2009Id.

2000The court refused the instruction, stating it was not persuaded that United States v. Kimble, 719 F.2d 1253 (5th Cir.1983), which defendant cited in support of the instruction, was binding on the court.

1990In Apodaca v. People, 712 P.2d 467 (Colo.1985), the trial court refused to rule upon defendant's pretrial motion, which requested a ruling as to whether the prosecution could use a prior conviction to impeach the defendant if he elected to testify, until such time as the district attorney actually sought to use the conviction for impeachment purposes.

1990In Apodaca v. People, 712 P.2d 467 (Colo.1985), the trial court refused to rule upon defendant’s pretrial motion, which requested a ruling as to whether the prosecution could use a prior conviction to impeach the defendant if he elected to testify, until such time as the district attorney actually sought to use the conviction for impeachment purposes.

1965In Lutz v. People, 133 Colo. 229 , 293 P.2d 646 , it was said: " * * * No error is committed if a trial court refuses to give a requested instruction, but covers the subject matter of the refused instruction by one which is submitted to the jury. * * *" This language was drawn from the rule announced in Reigan v. People, 120 Colo. 472 , 210 P.2d 991 .

1965In Lutz v. People, 133 Colo. 229 , 293 P.2d 646 , it was said: " * * * No error is committed if a trial court refuses to give a requested instruction, but covers the subject matter of the refused instruction by one which is submitted to the jury. * * *" This language was drawn from the rule announced in Reigan v. People, 120 Colo. 472 , 210 P.2d 991 .

1956Reigan v. People, 120 Colo. 472 , 210 P. (2d) 991; Wilder v. People, supra. In the instant case a proper instruction was given on excusable homicide by accident or misadventure, which instruction embraced elements not included in defendant’s tendered instruction which was a statement of what defendant “contended.” The instruction was in harmony with our holding in Jarich v. People, 58 Colo. 175 , 143 Pac. 1092 .

1937It is supported by Martin v. Grant, 90 Colo. 300, 307 , 8 P. (2d) 764 .

1937It is supported by Martin v. Grant, 90 Colo. 300, 307 , 8 P. (2d) 764 .

1922Wilkins v. People, 72 Colo. 157 , 209 Pac. 1047 .

1922Wilkins v. People, 72 Colo. 157 , 209 Pac. 1047 .