10 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 2017–2026 7 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wend v. Peoplegreen2 sentences2026Wend, 235 P.3d at 1096 . 2019Wend v. People, 235 P.3d 1089, 1096 (Colo. 2010). ¶ 30 Where, as here, a defendant does not object to the challenged conduct at trial, we review a prosecutorial misconduct claim for plain error. | 3 | 6 |
People v. Avilagreen1 sentence2026For prosecutorial misconduct to constitute plain error, the conduct must be “flagrantly, glaringly, or tremendously improper” and “so undermine[] the fundamental fairness of the trial 11 itself as to cast serious doubt on the reliability of the jury’s verdict.” Domingo-Gomez, 125 P.3d at 1053 (quoting People v. Avila, 944 P.2d 673, 676 (Colo. App. 1997)). ¶ 23 In analyzing a prosecutorial misconduct claim, the reviewing court must determine (1) whether the prosecutor’s questionable conduct was improper based on the totality of the circumstances, and (2) whether such actions warrant reversal ac | 1 | 1 |
Wilson v. Peoplegreen1 sentence2025An error is substantial if it “so undermined the fundamental fairness of the trial itself as to cast serious doubt on the reliability of the judgment of conviction.” Id. at ¶ 43 (quoting Wilson v. People, 743 P.2d 415, 420 (Colo. 1987)). ¶ 50 In reviewing a prosecutorial misconduct claim, we conduct a two-step analysis. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Gladneygreen1 sentence2024A prosecutor is entitled to “employ rhetorical devices and engage in oratorical embellishment and metaphorical nuance,” People v. Gladney, 250 P.3d 762, 769 (Colo. App. 2010) (citation omitted), and enjoys “considerable latitude in replying to opposing counsel’s arguments,” People v. Conyac, 2014 COA 8M, ¶ 133 . | 1 | 1 |
People v. Geisendorfergreen1 sentence2024When evaluating a prosecutorial misconduct claim relating to closing argument, we look to the “context of the argument as a whole and in light of the evidence before the jury.” People v. Geisendorfer, 991 P.2d 308, 312 (Colo. App. 1999). | 1 | 1 |
12 CAW Equities v. City of Greenwood Villagegreen1 sentence2020People v. Galvan, 2019 COA 68, ¶ 57 (cert. granted Jan. 13, 2020). ¶ 105 “Whether a prosecutor committed misconduct is an issue within the trial court’s discretion.” People v. Van Meter, 2018 COA 42 13, ¶ 25 . | 1 | 1 |
v. Galvangreen1 sentence2020People v. Galvan, 2019 COA 68, ¶ 57 (cert. granted Jan. 13, 2020). ¶ 105 “Whether a prosecutor committed misconduct is an issue within the trial court’s discretion.” People v. Van Meter, 2018 COA 42 13, ¶ 25 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Domingo-Gomez v. People
green
2 sentences2026For prosecutorial misconduct to constitute plain error, the conduct must be “flagrantly, glaringly, or tremendously improper” and “so undermine[] the fundamental fairness of the trial 11 itself as to cast serious doubt on the reliability of the jury’s verdict.” Domingo-Gomez, 125 P.3d at 1053 (quoting People v. Avila, 944 P.2d 673, 676 (Colo. App. 1997)). ¶ 23 In analyzing a prosecutorial misconduct claim, the reviewing court must determine (1) whether the prosecutor’s questionable conduct was improper based on the totality of the circumstances, and (2) whether such actions warrant reversal ac 2022A defendant asserting plain error in this context must show that the prosecutor’s misconduct was “flagrantly, glaringly, or tremendously improper,” Domingo-Gomez, 125 P.3d at 1053 , and we have observed that prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument rarely is so egregious as to satisfy this standard, Constant, 645 P.2d at 847 . 8 ¶67 Applying these principles here, I cannot say that the prosecution’s remarks rose to the level of plain error. | 2 | 2022–2026 |
People v. Samson
green
1 sentence2025People v. Samson, 2012 COA 167, ¶ 30 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Constant
green
1 sentence2022A defendant asserting plain error in this context must show that the prosecutor’s misconduct was “flagrantly, glaringly, or tremendously improper,” Domingo-Gomez, 125 P.3d at 1053 , and we have observed that prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument rarely is so egregious as to satisfy this standard, Constant, 645 P.2d at 847 . 8 ¶67 Applying these principles here, I cannot say that the prosecution’s remarks rose to the level of plain error. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Rhea
green
1 sentence2019People v. Rhea, 2014 COA 60, ¶ 43 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
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.