13 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1922–2025 5 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. Roadcapgreen2 sentences2021See Flippo , 159 P.3d at 106 ( "Although a defendant is entitled to present evidence in his or her defense, the manner in which the evidence is presented may be controlled by statute ." ) ; People v. Roadcap , 78 P.3d 1108, 1112 ( Colo. App. 2003 ) ( concluding that the trial court 's exclusion of expert testimony regarding the defendant 's mental condition, where the defendant didn't comply with the statutory notice requirement, didn't preclude this line of defense but only required him to comply with the statute if he chose to pursue it ) ; cf. Hendershott v. People , 653 P.2d 385, 392-97 ( 2021See Flippo, 159 P.3d at 106 (“Although a defendant is entitled to present evidence in his or her defense, the manner in which the evidence is presented may be controlled by statute.”); People v. Roadcap, 78 P.3d 1108, 1112 (Colo. App. 2003) (concluding that the trial court’s exclusion of expert testimony regarding the defendant’s mental condition, where the defendant didn’t comply with the statutory notice requirement, didn’t preclude this line of defense but only required him to comply with the statute if he chose to pursue it); cf. Hendershott v. People, 653 P.2d 385 , 392–97 (Colo. 1982) (c | 2 | 3 |
People v. Flippogreen2 sentences2021See Flippo , 159 P.3d at 106 ( "Although a defendant is entitled to present evidence in his or her defense, the manner in which the evidence is presented may be controlled by statute ." ) ; People v. Roadcap , 78 P.3d 1108, 1112 ( Colo. App. 2003 ) ( concluding that the trial court 's exclusion of expert testimony regarding the defendant 's mental condition, where the defendant didn't comply with the statutory notice requirement, didn't preclude this line of defense but only required him to comply with the statute if he chose to pursue it ) ; cf. Hendershott v. People , 653 P.2d 385, 392-97 ( 2021See Flippo, 159 P.3d at 106 (“Although a defendant is entitled to present evidence in his or her defense, the manner in which the evidence is presented may be controlled by statute.”); People v. Roadcap, 78 P.3d 1108, 1112 (Colo. App. 2003) (concluding that the trial court’s exclusion of expert testimony regarding the defendant’s mental condition, where the defendant didn’t comply with the statutory notice requirement, didn’t preclude this line of defense but only required him to comply with the statute if he chose to pursue it); cf. Hendershott v. People, 653 P.2d 385 , 392–97 (Colo. 1982) (c | 2 | 2 |
Hendershott v. Peoplegreen2 sentences2021See Flippo , 159 P.3d at 106 ( "Although a defendant is entitled to present evidence in his or her defense, the manner in which the evidence is presented may be controlled by statute ." ) ; People v. Roadcap , 78 P.3d 1108, 1112 ( Colo. App. 2003 ) ( concluding that the trial court 's exclusion of expert testimony regarding the defendant 's mental condition, where the defendant didn't comply with the statutory notice requirement, didn't preclude this line of defense but only required him to comply with the statute if he chose to pursue it ) ; cf. Hendershott v. People , 653 P.2d 385, 392-97 ( 2021See Flippo, 159 P.3d at 106 (“Although a defendant is entitled to present evidence in his or her defense, the manner in which the evidence is presented may be controlled by statute.”); People v. Roadcap, 78 P.3d 1108, 1112 (Colo. App. 2003) (concluding that the trial court’s exclusion of expert testimony regarding the defendant’s mental condition, where the defendant didn’t comply with the statutory notice requirement, didn’t preclude this line of defense but only required him to comply with the statute if he chose to pursue it); cf. Hendershott v. People, 653 P.2d 385 , 392–97 (Colo. 1982) (c | 1 | 2 |
People v. Collinsgreen1 sentence2025People v. Flockhart, 2013 CO 42, ¶ 37 (“[T]he ‘propriety of questions to potential jurors on voir dire is within the discretion of the trial court, and its ruling thereon will not be disturbed on appeal unless an abuse of that discretion is shown.’” (quoting People v. Collins, 730 P.2d 293, 300 (Colo. 1986))). ¶ 16 In any event, the cases Lewicke cites to support his contention that voir dire was improper and undermined the fairness of his trial are distinguishable. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Flockhartgreen1 sentence2025People v. Flockhart, 2013 CO 42, ¶ 37 (“[T]he ‘propriety of questions to potential jurors on voir dire is within the discretion of the trial court, and its ruling thereon will not be disturbed on appeal unless an abuse of that discretion is shown.’” (quoting People v. Collins, 730 P.2d 293, 300 (Colo. 1986))). ¶ 16 In any event, the cases Lewicke cites to support his contention that voir dire was improper and undermined the fairness of his trial are distinguishable. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Adamsgreen2 sentences2023See People v. Adams, 708 P.2d 813, 815 (Colo. App. 1985). ¶ 58 Second, Jones contends that the prosecutor told the jurors that they could convict based on less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. 2023See id. ¶ 62 Fourth, Jones contends that the prosecutor’s discussion regarding guns, hunting, and military training was improper because the line of questioning “had nothing to do with the facts or evidence in this case.” But both parties submitted a stipulated questionnaire inviting the prospective jurors to address their experiences with firearms, firearm training, and the military. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Herreragreen1 sentence2012It concluded that "[the court did not preclude this line of defense, but only required defendant to comply with the statute if he chose to pursue it." 78 P.3d at 1112 ; see also Herrera, 87 P.3d at 247 (affirming that a noncooperative defendant does not lose right to bring defense of mental condition, despite lack of expert witness testimony). " 52 We agree with the reasoning and analysis in Roadcap and conclude it is dispositive of Bondurant's contention. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Jamesgreen1 sentence2004See People v. James, 40 P.3d 36, 42-43 (Colo.App.2001)(discussing inquiries into plea bargain). | 1 | 1 |
Laughridge v. Mossgreen2 sentences1992See Laughridge v. Moss, 163 Ga.App. 427 , 294 S.E.2d 672 (1982). 1992See Laughridge v. Moss, 163 Ga.App. 427 , 294 S.E.2d 672 (1982). | 1 | 1 |
Old Dominion Branch No. 496 v. Austingreen2 sentences1983See National Ass’n of Letter Carriers v. Austin, 418 U.S. 264 , 94 S.Ct. 2770 , 41 L.Ed.2d 745 (1974); Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Ass’n v. Bresler, 398 U.S. 6 , 90 S.Ct. 1537 , 26 L.Ed.2d 6 (1970). 1983See National Ass’n of Letter Carriers v. Austin, 418 U.S. 264 , 94 S.Ct. 2770 , 41 L.Ed.2d 745 (1974); Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Ass’n v. Bresler, 398 U.S. 6 , 90 S.Ct. 1537 , 26 L.Ed.2d 6 (1970). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hunt v. Blackburn
green
1 sentence2022In Blackburn, the Supreme Court explained, in the simplest of terms, that “[w]hen Mrs. Blackburn entered upon a line of defense which involved what transpired between herself and Mr. Weatherford [her attorney], and respecting which she testified, she waived her right to object to his giving his own account of the matter.” Id. at 470–71. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Schwartz
green
1 sentence1987People v. Schwartz, supra. The judgment is affirmed. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
People v. Hawkins
green
2 sentences1984Thus, the trial court did not err in so instructing the jury.” Frayer, 661 P.2d at 1191 . 8 We have adopted this approach in the past, see People v. Hawkins, 192 Colo. 535 , 560 P.2d 833 (1977) (instruction only assumed uncontroverted facts and was not prejudicial), but in this case we prefer a different line of analysis. 1984Thus, the trial court did not err in so instructing the jury.” Frayer, 661 P.2d at 1191 . 8 We have adopted this approach in the past, see People v. Hawkins, 192 Colo. 535 , 560 P.2d 833 (1977) (instruction only assumed uncontroverted facts and was not prejudicial), but in this case we prefer a different line of analysis. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
People v. Frayer
neutral
1 sentence1984Thus, the trial court did not err in so instructing the jury.” Frayer, 661 P.2d at 1191 . 8 We have adopted this approach in the past, see People v. Hawkins, 192 Colo. 535 , 560 P.2d 833 (1977) (instruction only assumed uncontroverted facts and was not prejudicial), but in this case we prefer a different line of analysis. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Assn., Inc. v. Bresler
green
2 sentences1983See National Ass’n of Letter Carriers v. Austin, 418 U.S. 264 , 94 S.Ct. 2770 , 41 L.Ed.2d 745 (1974); Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Ass’n v. Bresler, 398 U.S. 6 , 90 S.Ct. 1537 , 26 L.Ed.2d 6 (1970). 1983See National Ass’n of Letter Carriers v. Austin, 418 U.S. 264 , 94 S.Ct. 2770 , 41 L.Ed.2d 745 (1974); Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Ass’n v. Bresler, 398 U.S. 6 , 90 S.Ct. 1537 , 26 L.Ed.2d 6 (1970). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Ritchey v. People
green
1 sentence1977As the Colorado *300 Supreme Court stated with regard to the testimony of a deaf mute in Ritchey v. People, 23 Colo. 314 , 47 P. 272 (1896), "That difficulty attends the examination of a [prosecution witness] is no reason why his testimony should be excluded." II. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Bessemer Irrigating Co. v. West Pueblo Ditch & Reservoir Co.
green
2 sentences1922Co., 65 Colo. 258 , 176 Pac. 302 , the opinion collates a number of our previous decisions which clearly state the established doctrine of this court in line with the great majority. 1922Co., 65 Colo. 258 , 176 Pac. 302 , the opinion collates a number of our previous decisions which clearly state the established doctrine of this court in line with the great majority. | 1 | 1922–1922 |
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.