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.
9 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1967–2024 1 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. McCluregreen2 sentences2002In People v. Burgess, 946 P.2d 565 (Colo.App.1997), a division of this court held that the 1998 amendments to § 13-25-129 evidenced the General Assembly's intent to eliminate the contemporaneous instruction requirement in People v. McClure, 779 P.2d 864 (Colo.1989). 'We agree with that holding and conclude that it is dispositive of defendant's contention. 1997See People v. McClure, supra. In other cases, it was not. | 1 | 2 |
National Farmers Union Property v. Estate of Moshergreen1 sentence2024Co. v. Estate of Mosher, 22 P.3d 531, 534 (Colo. App. 2000) (“We are not at liberty to read additional terms into, or to modify, the plain language of a statute, particularly where, as here, the 1 While we conclude that a contemporaneous instruction isn’t required, it seems that granting such a request is certainly best practice, absent a compelling countervailing reason. 16 General Assembly has elsewhere enacted the very limitation urged upon the court.”) (citations omitted). ¶ 36 Next, Sais argues that even if giving a contemporaneous limiting instruction is discretionary, the trial court fa | 1 | 1 |
People v. Collinsgreen2 sentences1998See, e.g., People v. Czemerynski, 786 P.2d 1100, 1107 (Colo.1990) (looking to the comment following CRE 803(1) to provide further guidance on the admissibility. o:f spontaneous or present sense, impressions exceptions to the hearsay rale and. to distinguish the Colorado rule from the federal rule — the Colorado rale being more restrictive on the contemporaneous requirement); People v. Collins, 730 P.2d 293, 305 (Colo.1986) (looking to the comment following CRE 704 to analyze the permissibility of a lay witness testifying as to an ultimate issue of fact). 1998See, e.g., People v. Czemerynski, 786 P.2d 1100, 1107 (Colo.1990) (looking to the comment following CRE 803(1) to provide further guidance on the admissibility of spontaneous or present sense impressions exceptions to the hearsay rule and to distinguish the Colorado rule from the federal rule—the Colorado rule being more restrictive on the contemporaneous requirement); People v. Collins, 730 P.2d 293, 305 (Colo.1986) (looking to the comment following CRE 704 to analyze the permissibility of a lay witness testifying as to an ultimate issue of fact). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Czemerynskigreen2 sentences1998See, e.g., People v. Czemerynski, 786 P.2d 1100, 1107 (Colo.1990) (looking to the comment following CRE 803(1) to provide further guidance on the admissibility. o:f spontaneous or present sense, impressions exceptions to the hearsay rale and. to distinguish the Colorado rule from the federal rule — the Colorado rale being more restrictive on the contemporaneous requirement); People v. Collins, 730 P.2d 293, 305 (Colo.1986) (looking to the comment following CRE 704 to analyze the permissibility of a lay witness testifying as to an ultimate issue of fact). 1998See, e.g., People v. Czemerynski, 786 P.2d 1100, 1107 (Colo.1990) (looking to the comment following CRE 803(1) to provide further guidance on the admissibility of spontaneous or present sense impressions exceptions to the hearsay rule and to distinguish the Colorado rule from the federal rule—the Colorado rule being more restrictive on the contemporaneous requirement); People v. Collins, 730 P.2d 293, 305 (Colo.1986) (looking to the comment following CRE 704 to analyze the permissibility of a lay witness testifying as to an ultimate issue of fact). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Valdezgreen1 sentence1997See People v. Valdez, 874 P.2d 415 (Colo.App.1993). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Wilsongreen1 sentence1993See People v. Wilson, supra. III. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Diefenderfergreen1 sentence1992See People v. Diefenderfer, 784 P.2d 741 (Colo.1989). | 1 | 1 |
Rosier v. Peoplegreen2 sentences1967See, Rosier v. People, 126 Colo. 82 , 247 P.2d 448 ; Ewing v. People, 87 Colo. 6 , 284 P. 341 . 1967See, Rosier v. People, 126 Colo. 82 , 247 P.2d 448 ; Ewing v. People, 87 Colo. 6 , 284 P. 341 . | 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. Burgess
green
1 sentence2002In People v. Burgess, 946 P.2d 565 (Colo.App.1997), a division of this court held that the 1998 amendments to § 13-25-129 evidenced the General Assembly's intent to eliminate the contemporaneous instruction requirement in People v. McClure, 779 P.2d 864 (Colo.1989). 'We agree with that holding and conclude that it is dispositive of defendant's contention. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
People v. Flysaway
green
1 sentence1991While there may be cases in which an instruction in the final charge is sufficient to cure the prior default in giving a contemporaneous instruction, see Flysaway, supra, the converse situation yields no such clear conclusion. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
People v. Frysig
green
1 sentence1985People v. Frysig, supra. In Frysig , although the court erroneously instructed the jury, that error was cured by a contemporaneous instruction defining the term substantial step. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Ewing v. People
neutral
2 sentences1967See, Rosier v. People, 126 Colo. 82 , 247 P.2d 448 ; Ewing v. People, 87 Colo. 6 , 284 P. 341 . 1967See, Rosier v. People, 126 Colo. 82 , 247 P.2d 448 ; Ewing v. People, 87 Colo. 6 , 284 P. 341 . | 1 | 1967–1967 |
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.