grounds challenge in Colorado

1936Recovery is generally permitted in such a case, but it is usually made to rest on the contractual relation existing between the parties, the courts holding that there is an implied contract to make no additional copies for such use, although some cases assert the additional grounds of violation of confidence, right of privacy, and right of property.” See, also, Fitzsimmons v. Olinger Mortuary Ass’n, 91 Colo. 544 , 17 P. (2d) 535 .

1936Recovery is generally permitted in such a case, but it is usually made to rest on the contractual relation existing between the parties, the courts holding that there is an implied contract to make no additional copies for such use, although some cases assert the additional grounds of violation of confidence, right of privacy, and right of property.” See, also, Fitzsimmons v. Olinger Mortuary Ass’n, 91 Colo. 544 , 17 P. (2d) 535 .

1899In those cases, the question whether in excepting to an instruction the grounds of the exception must be stated, was not directly passed upon, although we think a fair inference from the language employed would be that they need not be; but in Ritchey v. The People, 23 Colo. 314 , the question was finally determined.

1899In those cases, the question whether in excepting to an instruction the grounds of the exception must be stated, was not directly passed upon, although we think a fair inference from the language employed would be that they need not be; but in Ritchey v. The People, 23 Colo. 314 , the question was finally determined.

2012But a defendant is not "entitled to gamble on a more favorable verdict than that which he might otherwise have received and then, when such verdict is returned, have the option of having it set aside and calling for a new trial." Ellis v. People, 114 Colo. 334 , 344, 164 P.2d 733 , 737 (1945). ¶ 57 Colorado courts adhere to the rule that "[a] challenge for cause is waived if counsel does not use reasonable diligence during jury selection to determine whether the grounds for such a challenge exist." Asberry, 172 P.3d at 930 .

2012But a defendant is not "entitled to gamble on a more favorable verdict than that which he might otherwise have received and then, when such verdict is returned, have the option of having it set aside and calling for a new trial." Ellis v. People, 114 Colo. 334 , 344, 164 P.2d 733 , 737 (1945). ¶ 57 Colorado courts adhere to the rule that "[a] challenge for cause is waived if counsel does not use reasonable diligence during jury selection to determine whether the grounds for such a challenge exist." Asberry, 172 P.3d at 930 .

2012But a defendant is not "entitled to gamble on a more favorable verdict than that which he might otherwise have received and then, when such verdict is returned, have the option of having it set aside and calling for a new trial." Ellis v. People, 114 Colo. 334 , 344, 164 P.2d 733 , 737 (1945). ¶ 57 Colorado courts adhere to the rule that "[a] challenge for cause is waived if counsel does not use reasonable diligence during jury selection to determine whether the grounds for such a challenge exist." Asberry, 172 P.3d at 930 .

2006A division of this court in People v. Hendrickson, supra, rejected Matheivs on the grounds that the defense of entrapment does not rise to a constitutional dimension and Colorado is free to define the defense as it chooses.

2001Cf. Cummings v. People, supra, 785 P.2d at 926 (citing People v. *699 Odmann, 160 Cal.App2d 693, 325 P.2d 495 (1958)).

2001Cf. Cummings v. People, supra, 785 P.2d at 926 (citing People v. *699 Odmann, 160 Cal.App2d 693, 325 P.2d 495 (1958)).

1970Houser v. Eckhardt, supra. In view of our ruling in this case, we will not consider the other grounds of error urged.

1912Oil review a consideration of the errors assigned are usually limited to the grounds of error to which the attention of the trial court was directed. — Land & Town Co. v. Patton, 21 Colo. 503 ; Antlers Pank R.