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 1993–2025 6 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Perezgreen1 sentence2025See State v. Putz, 662 N.W.2d 606, 612 (Neb. 2003); Commonwealth v. Russell, 23 N.E.3d 867, 877-78 (Mass. 2015); United States v. Porter, 821 F.2d 968 , 973 (4th Cir. 1987); State v. Perez, 976 P.2d 427, 442 (Haw. Ct. App. 1998), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 976 P.2d 379 (Haw. 1999). ¶ 34 But we disagree with the premise of Griego’s argument. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Russellgreen1 sentence2025See State v. Putz, 662 N.W.2d 606, 612 (Neb. 2003); Commonwealth v. Russell, 23 N.E.3d 867, 877-78 (Mass. 2015); United States v. Porter, 821 F.2d 968 , 973 (4th Cir. 1987); State v. Perez, 976 P.2d 427, 442 (Haw. Ct. App. 1998), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 976 P.2d 379 (Haw. 1999). ¶ 34 But we disagree with the premise of Griego’s argument. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Putzyellow1 sentence2025See State v. Putz, 662 N.W.2d 606, 612 (Neb. 2003); Commonwealth v. Russell, 23 N.E.3d 867, 877-78 (Mass. 2015); United States v. Porter, 821 F.2d 968 , 973 (4th Cir. 1987); State v. Perez, 976 P.2d 427, 442 (Haw. Ct. App. 1998), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 976 P.2d 379 (Haw. 1999). ¶ 34 But we disagree with the premise of Griego’s argument. | 1 | 1 |
Garcia v. Peoplegreen1 sentence2023Instead, courts should “‘give weight’ to the model instructions but must ultimately ensure that an instruction tracks the language of the statute.” Grudznske, ¶ 66 (citation omitted); see Garcia v. People, 2019 CO 64, ¶ 22 (explaining that, because “the model instructions weren’t ‘approved as accurate reflections of the law’ and were merely ‘intended as helpful resource material,’” they “are not a safe harbor that insulates instructional error from reversal”) (quoting COLJI-Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Krueger v. Arygreen1 sentence2023Krueger v. Ary, 205 P.3d 1150, 1154 (Colo. 2009); see Grudznske, ¶ 66 (“Nor do we reach a contrary conclusion based on the fact that the model jury instruction used knowingly to apply to the circumstances element of the extreme indifference offenses.”). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Cevallos-Acostagreen1 sentence2021Id. at 124. 2. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Greniergreen1 sentence2019H:11 (2018); see also People v. Grenier, 200 P.3d 1062 , 23 1080 (Colo. App. 2008) (finding no error where the jury instruction tracked the language of the model jury instruction). ¶ 51 Cassels, 92 P.3d at 956 , and Idrogo v. People, 818 P.2d 752 (Colo. 1991), are distinguishable because in those cases, none of the jury instructions told the jury that the defendant did not have a duty to retreat. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Tweedygreen1 sentence2019People v. Tweedy, 126 P.3d 303, 307 (Colo. App. 2005). ¶ 50 The jury was instructed that Galvan “was legally authorized to use physical force upon another person without first retreating . . . .” (Emphasis added.) The instruction containing the “no retreat” language tracked the language of the model jury instruction. | 1 | 1 |
Idrogo v. Peoplegreen1 sentence2019H:11 (2018); see also People v. Grenier, 200 P.3d 1062 , 23 1080 (Colo. App. 2008) (finding no error where the jury instruction tracked the language of the model jury instruction). ¶ 51 Cassels, 92 P.3d at 956 , and Idrogo v. People, 818 P.2d 752 (Colo. 1991), are distinguishable because in those cases, none of the jury instructions told the jury that the defendant did not have a duty to retreat. | 1 | 1 |
Cassels v. Peoplegreen1 sentence2019H:11 (2018); see also People v. Grenier, 200 P.3d 1062 , 23 1080 (Colo. App. 2008) (finding no error where the jury instruction tracked the language of the model jury instruction). ¶ 51 Cassels, 92 P.3d at 956 , and Idrogo v. People, 818 P.2d 752 (Colo. 1991), are distinguishable because in those cases, none of the jury instructions told the jury that the defendant did not have a duty to retreat. | 1 | 1 |
The People of the Territory of Guam v. Thomas v. McGraveygreen1 sentence2003See Guam v. McGravey, 14 F.3d 1344 (9th Cir.1994). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Pennesegreen2 sentences1993See, e.g., Pennese, 830 P.2d at 1089 . [13] Under *493 the model jury instruction, a jury properly considers the question of provocation only after it has determined that a defendant is guilty of first or second degree assault. 1993See, e.g., Pennese, 830 P.2d at 1089 . 13 Un der the model jury instruction, a jury properly considers the question of provocation only after it has determined that a defendant is guilty of first or second degree assault. | 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. Porter
green
1 sentence2025See State v. Putz, 662 N.W.2d 606, 612 (Neb. 2003); Commonwealth v. Russell, 23 N.E.3d 867, 877-78 (Mass. 2015); United States v. Porter, 821 F.2d 968 , 973 (4th Cir. 1987); State v. Perez, 976 P.2d 427, 442 (Haw. Ct. App. 1998), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 976 P.2d 379 (Haw. 1999). ¶ 34 But we disagree with the premise of Griego’s argument. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Perez
green
1 sentence2025See State v. Putz, 662 N.W.2d 606, 612 (Neb. 2003); Commonwealth v. Russell, 23 N.E.3d 867, 877-78 (Mass. 2015); United States v. Porter, 821 F.2d 968 , 973 (4th Cir. 1987); State v. Perez, 976 P.2d 427, 442 (Haw. Ct. App. 1998), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 976 P.2d 379 (Haw. 1999). ¶ 34 But we disagree with the premise of Griego’s argument. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Hickman
green
1 sentence2025SUMMARY February 27, 2025 2025COA22 No. 22CA1067, People v. Trujillo — Criminal Law — Model Jury Instructions — Retaliation Against a Witness or Victim — Requirements for Criminal Liability — Intentionally; Crimes — Retaliation Against a Witness or Victim — Specific Intent A division of the court of appeals holds that the model jury instructions for retaliation against a witness or victim and for attempt to commit retaliation against a witness or victim, together with the model jury instruction explaining the mental state “intentionally,” do not adequately inform the jury of the specific inten | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Trujillo
green
2 sentences2025COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2025COA22 Court of Appeals No. 22CA1067 La Plata County District Court No. 20CR231 Honorable Suzanne F. Carlson, Judge The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Erin Amber Trujillo, Defendant-Appellant. 2025SUMMARY February 27, 2025 2025COA22 No. 22CA1067, People v. Trujillo — Criminal Law — Model Jury Instructions — Retaliation Against a Witness or Victim — Requirements for Criminal Liability — Intentionally; Crimes — Retaliation Against a Witness or Victim — Specific Intent A division of the court of appeals holds that the model jury instructions for retaliation against a witness or victim and for attempt to commit retaliation against a witness or victim, together with the model jury instruction explaining the mental state “intentionally,” do not adequately inform the jury of the specific inten | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Childress
green
1 sentence2024Specifically, he asserts that the trial court plainly erred by using a jury instruction on complicity liability that did not mirror the model jury instruction o r incorporate the changes to complicity liability outlined in Peop le v. Childress , 2 015 CO 65M, ¶ 34, 363 P.3d 155 , 165 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Carbajal
green
2 sentences2021Notably, in approving the trial court’s modified instruction, id. at ¶ 21, 328 P.3d at 109 , the court disapproved of the then-existing model instruction for the affirmative defense to POWPO, see id. at ¶ 20, 328 P.3d at 108-09 . ¶ 22 Consistent with Carbajal, the model jury instruction was amended again to state that the affirmative defense to POWPO applies only if the defendant “possessed the weapon for the purpose of defending his [her] home, person or property from what he [she] reasonably believed to be a threat of imminent harm which was about to occur because of a situation occasioned o 2021Notably, in approving the trial court’s modified instruction, id. at ¶ 21, 328 P.3d at 109 , the court disapproved of the then-existing model instruction for the affirmative defense to POWPO, see id. at ¶ 20, 328 P.3d at 108-09 . ¶ 22 Consistent with Carbajal, the model jury instruction was amended again to state that the affirmative defense to POWPO applies only if the defendant “possessed the weapon for the purpose of defending his [her] home, person or property from what he [she] reasonably believed to be a threat of imminent harm which was about to occur because of a situation occasioned o | 1 | 2021–2021 |
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.