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.
11 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1910–2025 2 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. Melaragreen2 sentences2025Its comments to that edition state simply that, “[i]n 2023, the [c]ommittee added the final sentence to the instruction’s first paragraph regarding evidence or lack of evidence.” Id. at cmt. 8. 6 The committee provided no rationale for the additional sentence. 2025See id. | 1 | 1 |
Robertson v. Westminster Mall Co.green1 sentence2024See Robertson v. Westminster Mall Co., 43 P.3d 622, 628 (Colo. App. 2001) (“An actual controversy is an essential requisite to jurisdiction.”). | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Johnsgreen2 sentences2000See Downing v. People, 895 P.2d 1046, 1050 (Colo.1995); People v. Bradley, 169 Colo. 262, 264-265 , 455 P.2d 199, 200 (1969); see also Smith v. Johns, 187 Colo. 388, 390 , 532 P.2d 49, 50 (1975)(holding that "[where a trial court has jurisdiction of a person of the defendant and of the subject matter, and has imposed a sentence in error, the court retains jurisdiction to correct the sentence"). 2000See Downing v. People, 895 P.2d 1046, 1050 (Colo.1995); People v. Bradley, 169 Colo. 262, 264-265 , 455 P.2d 199, 200 (1969); see also Smith v. Johns, 187 Colo. 388, 390 , 532 P.2d 49, 50 (1975)(holding that "[where a trial court has jurisdiction of a person of the defendant and of the subject matter, and has imposed a sentence in error, the court retains jurisdiction to correct the sentence"). | 1 | 1 |
Downing v. Peoplegreen1 sentence2000See Downing v. People, 895 P.2d 1046, 1050 (Colo.1995); People v. Bradley, 169 Colo. 262, 264-265 , 455 P.2d 199, 200 (1969); see also Smith v. Johns, 187 Colo. 388, 390 , 532 P.2d 49, 50 (1975)(holding that "[where a trial court has jurisdiction of a person of the defendant and of the subject matter, and has imposed a sentence in error, the court retains jurisdiction to correct the sentence"). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Bradleygreen2 sentences2000See Downing v. People, 895 P.2d 1046, 1050 (Colo.1995); People v. Bradley, 169 Colo. 262, 264-265 , 455 P.2d 199, 200 (1969); see also Smith v. Johns, 187 Colo. 388, 390 , 532 P.2d 49, 50 (1975)(holding that "[where a trial court has jurisdiction of a person of the defendant and of the subject matter, and has imposed a sentence in error, the court retains jurisdiction to correct the sentence"). 2000See Downing v. People, 895 P.2d 1046, 1050 (Colo.1995); People v. Bradley, 169 Colo. 262, 264-265 , 455 P.2d 199, 200 (1969); see also Smith v. Johns, 187 Colo. 388, 390 , 532 P.2d 49, 50 (1975)(holding that "[where a trial court has jurisdiction of a person of the defendant and of the subject matter, and has imposed a sentence in error, the court retains jurisdiction to correct the sentence"). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Kastninggreen2 sentences1991See People v. Kastning, 738 P.2d 807 (Colo.App.1987). 1991See People v. Kastning, 738 P.2d 807 (Colo.App.1987). | 1 | 1 |
Villalon v. Peoplegreen2 sentences1975See Villalon v. People, 145 Colo. 327 , 358 P.2d 1018 (1961), and cases cited therein. 1975See Villalon v. People, 145 Colo. 327 , 358 P.2d 1018 (1961), and cases cited therein. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Harlan
green
2 sentences2020H:34 (2018) applies to “Intoxication (Voluntary).” The final sentence of the instruction reads, in part, that “you may not consider evidence of self-induced intoxication for purposes of deciding whether the prosecution has proved the elements of [insert name(s) of general intent offense(s)].” Id. 2020Comment 8 states that the above sentence “curtails a jury’s consideration of evidence of defendant’s intoxication where the defendant is also charged with general intent crimes.” Id. at cmt. 8. ¶ 62 Although the wording of Instruction H:34 and the instruction that the trial court read to the jury in this case differ, they mean much the same. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Griego v. People
green
1 sentence2007The court concluded that the jury instruetion was erroneous because it misdescribed an element of the offense as explained in Neder, 527 U.S. 1 , 119 S.Ct. 1827 , 144 L.Ed.2d 35 , and Griego, 19 P.3d 1 , such that the court imposed a sentence in violation of Apprendi, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Apprendi v. New Jersey
green
2 sentences2007The court concluded that the jury instruetion was erroneous because it misdescribed an element of the offense as explained in Neder, 527 U.S. 1 , 119 S.Ct. 1827 , 144 L.Ed.2d 35 , and Griego, 19 P.3d 1 , such that the court imposed a sentence in violation of Apprendi, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 . 2007The court concluded that the jury instruetion was erroneous because it misdescribed an element of the offense as explained in Neder, 527 U.S. 1 , 119 S.Ct. 1827 , 144 L.Ed.2d 35 , and Griego, 19 P.3d 1 , such that the court imposed a sentence in violation of Apprendi, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Neder v. United States
green
2 sentences2007The court concluded that the jury instruetion was erroneous because it misdescribed an element of the offense as explained in Neder, 527 U.S. 1 , 119 S.Ct. 1827 , 144 L.Ed.2d 35 , and Griego, 19 P.3d 1 , such that the court imposed a sentence in violation of Apprendi, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 . 2007The court concluded that the jury instruetion was erroneous because it misdescribed an element of the offense as explained in Neder, 527 U.S. 1 , 119 S.Ct. 1827 , 144 L.Ed.2d 35 , and Griego, 19 P.3d 1 , such that the court imposed a sentence in violation of Apprendi, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Fuller v. Oregon
green
2 sentences2007See, e.g., Chief Justice Directive 04-04(V) (permitting the sentencing court to require payment for the cost of representation as a condition of probation); cf. Fuller v. Oregon, 417 U.S. 40, 43 , 94 S.Ct. 2116 , 40 L.Ed.2d 642 (1974) (rejecting an equal protection challenge to a statute directing that a sentence to probation shall include a requirement for reimbursement of the cost of court-appointed counsel where an indigent defendant subsequently gains the ability to repay the expenses of legal representation). 2007See, e.g., Chief Justice Directive 04-04(V) (permitting the sentencing court to require payment for the cost of representation as a condition of probation); cf. Fuller v. Oregon, 417 U.S. 40, 43 , 94 S.Ct. 2116 , 40 L.Ed.2d 642 (1974) (rejecting an equal protection challenge to a statute directing that a sentence to probation shall include a requirement for reimbursement of the cost of court-appointed counsel where an indigent defendant subsequently gains the ability to repay the expenses of legal representation). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
People v. Fuqua
green
1 sentence1995Nor do we view this conclusion to be in conflict with People v. Fuqua, supra. In that case the supreme court stated that the only jurisdictional limit in Crim.P. 35(b) on the court’s authority to reduce a sentence is the requirement that the defendant file the motion for reduction of sentence within 120 days after the imposition of the “original” sentence. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
People v. Hoecher
green
1 sentence1992People v. Hoecker, 822 P.2d 8 (Colo.1991). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Perry v. People
neutral
1 sentence1910In Perry v. People, 38 Colo. 23 , a sentence in an instruction very similar to the part of No. 8 under consideration, was sustained. | 1 | 1910–1910 |
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.