10 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1976–2021 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. Shreckgreen2 sentences2021An admissibility analysis under Shreck requires the court to determine whether “(1) the scientific principles underlying the testimony are reasonably reliable; (2) the expert is qualified to opine on such matters; (3) the expert testimony will be helpful to the jury; and (4) the evidence satisfies CRE 403.” Rector, 248 P.3d at 1200 ; see Shreck, 22 P.3d at 77-79 . 2020An admissibility analysis under Shreck requires the court to determine whether “(1) the scientific principles underlying the testimony are reasonably reliable; (2) the expert is qualified to opine 15 on such matters; (3) the expert testimony will be helpful to the jury; and (4) the evidence satisfies CRE 403.” Rector, 248 P.3d at 1200 ; see Shreck, 22 P.3d at 77-79 . | 2 | 3 |
People v. Bowersgreen2 sentences1995In People v. Bowers, 716 P.2d 471 (Colo.1986), this court held that substantial compliance with department of health rules, as found in section 42-4-1202(3)(b), is a separate and distinct inquiry from the requirement that the prosecution must lay a proper foundation for the admission of breath test results into evidence at a criminal trial. 1990See People v. Bowers, 716 P.2d 471 (Colo.1986). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Abeytagreen1 sentence2021See, e.g., People v. Abeyta, 728 P.2d 327, 331 (Colo. App. 1986). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Spotogreen1 sentence2013JUSTICE RICE delivered the Opinion of the Court. 1 In this sexual assault case, we hold that trial courts have no obligation to determine that evidence of other acts offered under CRE 404(b) and section 16-10-8301, C.R.S. (2013), satisfies the doctrine of chances to also satisfy the second and third prongs of the four-part admissibility test articulated in People v. Spoto, 795 P.2d 1314, 1318 (Colo.1990). | 1 | 1 |
Fishback v. Peoplegreen2 sentences2005Both Lee and Fishback involved the admissibility of DNA evidence and thus directly concerned the statistical significance of the declared DNA profile “match.” See Fishback, 851 P.2d at 888 (“Once a match has been declared, its statistical significance must be determined.”). 2005Both Lee and Fishback involved the admissibility of DNA evidence and thus directly concerned the statistical significance of the declared DNA profile "match." See Fishback, 851 P.2d at 888 ("Once a match has been declared, its statistical significance must be determined."). | 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. Rector
green
2 sentences2021An admissibility analysis under Shreck requires the court to determine whether “(1) the scientific principles underlying the testimony are reasonably reliable; (2) the expert is qualified to opine on such matters; (3) the expert testimony will be helpful to the jury; and (4) the evidence satisfies CRE 403.” Rector, 248 P.3d at 1200 ; see Shreck, 22 P.3d at 77-79 . 2020An admissibility analysis under Shreck requires the court to determine whether “(1) the scientific principles underlying the testimony are reasonably reliable; (2) the expert is qualified to opine 15 on such matters; (3) the expert testimony will be helpful to the jury; and (4) the evidence satisfies CRE 403.” Rector, 248 P.3d at 1200 ; see Shreck, 22 P.3d at 77-79 . | 2 | 2020–2021 |
People v. Pack
green
1 sentence2021It distinguished Cunningham on the basis that the defendant there did not argue that his statement was admissible as an excited utterance under CRE 803(2).2 Pack, 797 P.2d at 775 . ¶ 25 We acknowledge that supreme court case law explains that the self-serving nature of a statement against interest is relevant to the admissibility analysis under CRE 804(b)(3).3 See Nicholls v. People, 2 To the extent that other divisions of this court have cited Cunningham for the proposition that self-serving hearsay is inadmissible even if it fits within an exception recognized by the Colorado Rules of Eviden | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Yusem v. People
green
1 sentence2013CRE 404(b) permits a trial court to admit evidence of a defendant's other erimes, wrongs, or acts for the purpose of proving "motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, ... or absence of mistake or accident." The trial court may not, however, admit evidence of the defendant's other acts "to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith." Id. 113 Recognizing that sexual offenses "are a matter of grave statewide concern," section 16-10-301(1), the General Assembly has specifically delineated the CRE 404(b) admissibility requirements for other acts ev | 1 | 2013–2013 |
United States v. Nixon
green
2 sentences2010Nixon, 418 U.S. at 700 n. 12, 94 S.Ct. 3090 ; see also Benjamin E. 2010Nixon, 418 U.S. at 700 n. 12, 94 S.Ct. 3090 ; see also Benjamin E. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Missouri v. Seibert
green
1 sentence2009Id. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Jones
green
1 sentence1976Under such circumstances, “trials should proceed in reliance upon that evidence which exists, rather than be barred because some evidence is not available.” State v. Jones, 18 Or. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
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.