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.
10 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2012 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Chapman v. Californiayellow2 sentences2012Compare Miller, 113 P.3d at 749 (reversal required if the error casts serious doubt upon the reliability of the judgment of conviction), with Chapman, 386 U.S. at 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824 (reversal required unless the reviewing court can declare a belief that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt). 2012Compare Miller, 113 P.3d at 749 (reversal required if the error casts serious doubt upon the reliability of the judgment of conviction), with Chapman, 386 U.S. at 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824 (reversal required unless the reviewing court can declare a belief that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt). | 2 | 3 |
People v. Millergreen2 sentences2012Compare Miller, 113 P.3d at 749 (reversal required if the error casts serious doubt upon the reliability of the judgment of conviction), with Chapman, 386 U.S. at 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824 (reversal required unless the reviewing court can declare a belief that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt). 2012Compare Miller , 113 P.3d at 749 ( reversal required if the error casts serious doubt upon the reliability of the judgment of conviction ) , with Chapman , 386 U.S. at 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824 ( reversal required unless the reviewing court can declare a belief that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt ) . | 2 | 2 |
Key v. Peoplegreen2 sentences2002This error requires reversal unless the appellate court can "declare a belief that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." Blecha, 962 P.2d at 942 ; Key v. People, 865 P.2d 822, 827 (Colo.1994). 1998The error here was a trial error that requires reversal “unless the appellate court can ‘declare a belief that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Key v. People, 865 P.2d 822, 827 (Colo.1994) (quoting Leonardo v. People, 728 P.2d 1252, 1257 (Colo.1986) (alterations omitted)). | 2 | 2 |
Wilson v. Peoplegreen2 sentences2012We reaffirm the Wilson formulation of the plain error standard-that is, those errors that "so undermined the fundamental fairness of the trial itself as to cast serious doubt on the reliability of the judgment of conviction." 743 P.2d at 420 (citing Young, 470 U.S. at 16 , 105 S.Ct. 1088 ); Miller, 113 P.3d at 750 . 128 Our conclusion is consistent with the purposes underlying each standard. 2012We reaffirm the Wilson formulation of the plain error standard—that is, those errors that “so undermined the fundamental fairness of the trial itself as to cast serious doubt on the reliability of the judgment of conviction.” 743 P.2d at 420 ( citing Young , 470 U.S. at 16 , 105 S.Ct. 1038 ) ; Miller , 113 P.3d at 750 . ¶ 23 Our conclusion is consistent with the purposes underlying each standard. | 1 | 2 |
Blecha v. Peoplegreen2 sentences2009The violation of a defendant's right of confrontation is an error of constitutional magnitude and requires reversal unless the reviewing court can "declare a belief that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." People v. Harris, 43 P.3d 221, 230 (Colo.2002); Blecha v. People, 962 P.2d 931, 942 (Colo.1998). 2002This error requires reversal unless the appellate court can "declare a belief that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." Blecha, 962 P.2d at 942 ; Key v. People, 865 P.2d 822, 827 (Colo.1994). | 1 | 2 |
Leonardo v. Peoplegreen2 sentences1998The prosecution bears the burden of proving that Younger’s hearsay statement did not contribute to Blecha’s conviction or that the “error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. 1998The error here was a trial error that requires reversal “unless the appellate court can ‘declare a belief that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Key v. People, 865 P.2d 822, 827 (Colo.1994) (quoting Leonardo v. People, 728 P.2d 1252, 1257 (Colo.1986) (alterations omitted)). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Harrisgreen1 sentence2009The violation of a defendant's right of confrontation is an error of constitutional magnitude and requires reversal unless the reviewing court can "declare a belief that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." People v. Harris, 43 P.3d 221, 230 (Colo.2002); Blecha v. People, 962 P.2d 931, 942 (Colo.1998). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Dunlapgreen1 sentence2000Under this standard, "trial errors require reversal unless the appellate court can declare a belief that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." Dunlap, 975 P.2d at 787 (internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Young
green
2 sentences2012We reaffirm the Wilson formulation of the plain error standard-that is, those errors that "so undermined the fundamental fairness of the trial itself as to cast serious doubt on the reliability of the judgment of conviction." 743 P.2d at 420 (citing Young, 470 U.S. at 16 , 105 S.Ct. 1088 ); Miller, 113 P.3d at 750 . 128 Our conclusion is consistent with the purposes underlying each standard. 2012We reaffirm the Wilson formulation of the plain error standard—that is, those errors that “so undermined the fundamental fairness of the trial itself as to cast serious doubt on the reliability of the judgment of conviction.” 743 P.2d at 420 ( citing Young , 470 U.S. at 16 , 105 S.Ct. 1038 ) ; Miller , 113 P.3d at 750 . ¶ 23 Our conclusion is consistent with the purposes underlying each standard. | 2 | 2012–2012 |
People v. Harlan
red
1 sentence2004The court stated that "because [the defendant] preserved the issue for appeal," it would consider the claim under a harmless error standard and that preserved error requires reversal wnless "the appellate court can declare a belief that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." People v. Harlan, supra, 8 P.3d at 472 (quoting Dunlap, supra, 975 P.2d at 787)(emphasis added). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Illinois v. Rodriguez
green
2 sentences1997Id. 1997Id. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.