give instruction in Colorado

1991In People v. McClure, 779 P.2d 864 (Colo. 1989), our supreme court construed § 13-25-129 to require that the court give the instruction contemporaneously with the admission of the hearsay evidence and again at the conclusion of the case.

1990People v. McClure, 779 P.2d 864 (Colo.1989); People v. Mathes, 703 P.2d 608 (Colo.App.1985).

2021The court responded that, if it provided the jurors with a definition of “transfer,” they may respond with a further question — “What does that mean?” ¶ 47 The prosecutor then asked the court to give an instruction on “the everyday meaning or something to that extent.” Defense counsel opposed this suggestion, asserting that the court should 21 tell the jurors, “you have been given all the instructions as is.” The court said it would instruct the jurors “there is no statutory definition of transfer in the context of transfer of a firearm. . . . [T]hey have received the instructions they may use

2015Consumer Expectation Test versus Risk-Benefit Test ¶10        Relying on Camacho v. Honda Motor Co ., 741 P.2d 1240 (Colo. 1987), and Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Heath , 722 P.2d 410 (Colo. 1986), overruled in part by Armentrout v. FMC Corp ., 842 P.2d 175 (Colo. 1992), Ford argues that it was reversible error for the trial court to give instruction number 18.

2015Consumer Expectation Test versus Risk-Benefit Test ¶10        Relying on Camacho v. Honda Motor Co ., 741 P.2d 1240 (Colo. 1987), and Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Heath , 722 P.2d 410 (Colo. 1986), overruled in part by Armentrout v. FMC Corp ., 842 P.2d 175 (Colo. 1992), Ford argues that it was reversible error for the trial court to give instruction number 18.

2015Consumer Expectation Test versus Risk-Benefit Test ¶10        Relying on Camacho v. Honda Motor Co ., 741 P.2d 1240 (Colo. 1987), and Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Heath , 722 P.2d 410 (Colo. 1986), overruled in part by Armentrout v. FMC Corp ., 842 P.2d 175 (Colo. 1992), Ford argues that it was reversible error for the trial court to give instruction number 18.

2000People v. Manzamares, 942 P.2d 1235 (Colo.App.1996).

1990People v. McClure, 779 P.2d 864 (Colo.1989); People v. Mathes, 703 P.2d 608 (Colo.App.1985).

1990People v. McClure, 779 P.2d 864 (Colo. 1989); People v. Mathes, 703 P.2d 608 (Colo.App.1985).

1983We therefore do not intend to require or encourage trial courts in a case such as this to give an instruction such as that requested by defense counsel.” State v. Owens, 304 N.W.2d 916 (Minn.1981).

1975As was stated in Dolan v. People, 168 Colo. 19 , 449 P.2d 828 : "The constitutional right to the assistance of counsel is not a guarantee against mistakes of strategy or exercise of judgment in the course of a trial as viewed through the 20-20 vision of hind-sight following the return of a verdict in a criminal case." The final error alleged is the refusal of the court to give an instruction that the missing witness was unavailable through no fault of the defendant.

1975As was stated in Dolan v. People, 168 Colo. 19 , 449 P.2d 828 : "The constitutional right to the assistance of counsel is not a guarantee against mistakes of strategy or exercise of judgment in the course of a trial as viewed through the 20-20 vision of hind-sight following the return of a verdict in a criminal case." The final error alleged is the refusal of the court to give an instruction that the missing witness was unavailable through no fault of the defendant.

1963They contend that the rationale of Canon City v. Merris, 137 Colo. 169 , 323 P. (2d) 614 ; and Davis v. Denver, 140 Colo. 30 , 342 P. (2d) 674 , require the use of the statute rather than the ordinance.

1963They contend that the rationale of Canon City v. Merris, 137 Colo. 169 , 323 P. (2d) 614 ; and Davis v. Denver, 140 Colo. 30 , 342 P. (2d) 674 , require the use of the statute rather than the ordinance.

1963They contend that the rationale of Canon City v. Merris, 137 Colo. 169 , 323 P. (2d) 614 ; and Davis v. Denver, 140 Colo. 30 , 342 P. (2d) 674 , require the use of the statute rather than the ordinance.

1963They contend that the rationale of Canon City v. Merris, 137 Colo. 169 , 323 P. (2d) 614 ; and Davis v. Denver, 140 Colo. 30 , 342 P. (2d) 674 , require the use of the statute rather than the ordinance.

1932Such is the law as declared by this court in Crawford v. People, 12 Colo. 290 , 20 Pac. 769 , wherein *424 we said: “When there is any evidence whatever tending to establish a certain statutory grade of criminal homicide, and the court refuses to charge the jury with reference thereto, error is committed; * * *.

1909This was not done; the exception taken being' general to all the instructions offered by defendant en masse will not be considered by this court upon review.—Webber v. Emmerson, 3 Colo. 248 ; K.