8 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 2007–2026 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Harmelin v. Michigangreen1 sentence2025“It is ‘exceedingly rare’ for a sentence to be deemed so extreme that it is grossly disproportionate to the crime.” Id. at ¶ 5 (quoting Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 1001 (1991) (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment)). ¶ 43 Relying on People v. Walker, 2022 COA 15 , the People contend that because Garcia never raised the issue of proportionality at trial, we should review the claim for plain error. | 1 | 1 |
v. Wamboltgreen1 sentence2022See Reyna-Abarca, ¶ 47 (holding that “an appellate court may review an unpreserved double jeopardy claim and that the court should ordinarily review such a claim for plain error”); see generally People v. Wambolt, 2018 COA 88, ¶¶ 68-70 ; People v. Jamison, 2018 COA 121, ¶¶ 52-53 . | 1 | 1 |
Hagos v. Peoplegreen1 sentence2021Hagos , ¶ 14. | 1 | 1 |
Vega v. Peoplegreen1 sentence2015VI; Vega v. People, 893 P.2d 107, 118 (Colo. 1995). "[Ilt is constitutional error to limit excessively a defendant's eross-exami-nation of a witness regarding the witness' credibility, especially eross-examination concerning the witness' bias, prejudice, or motive for testifying." Merritt v. People, 842 P.2d 162, 167 (Colo. 1992). {28 However, a trial court has "wide latitude, insofar as the Confrontation Clause is concerned, to place reasonable limits on cross-examination based on concerns about, for example, harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues, the witness' safety, or interrogatio | 1 | 1 |
Merritt v. Peoplegreen2 sentences2015VI; Vega v. People, 893 P.2d 107, 118 (Colo. 1995). "[Ilt is constitutional error to limit excessively a defendant's eross-exami-nation of a witness regarding the witness' credibility, especially eross-examination concerning the witness' bias, prejudice, or motive for testifying." Merritt v. People, 842 P.2d 162, 167 (Colo. 1992). {28 However, a trial court has "wide latitude, insofar as the Confrontation Clause is concerned, to place reasonable limits on cross-examination based on concerns about, for example, harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues, the witness' safety, or interrogatio 2015VI; Vega v. People, 893 P.2d 107, 118 (Colo. 1995). "[Ilt is constitutional error to limit excessively a defendant's eross-exami-nation of a witness regarding the witness' credibility, especially eross-examination concerning the witness' bias, prejudice, or motive for testifying." Merritt v. People, 842 P.2d 162, 167 (Colo. 1992). {28 However, a trial court has "wide latitude, insofar as the Confrontation Clause is concerned, to place reasonable limits on cross-examination based on concerns about, for example, harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues, the witness' safety, or interrogatio | 1 | 1 |
People v. Vigilgreen1 sentence2012See People v. Vigil, 127 P.3d 916, 929-30 (Colo.2006). 2. | 1 | 1 |
Wilson v. Peoplegreen1 sentence2007We conclude that when a postconviction claim is properly presented for evaluation on the merits but is premised on trial error that was not preserved by a contemporaneous objection, Colorado courts must review the claim for plain error, employing the prejudice test articulated in Wilson v. People, 743 P.2d 415, 420 (Colo.1987). | 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. Smith
green
1 sentence2026“Plain error addresses error that is obvious and substantial and that so undermines the fundamental fairness 12 of the trial itself as to cast serious doubt on the reliability of the judgment of conviction.” People v. Smith, 2018 CO 33, ¶ 24 . ¶ 23 A simple variance occurs “when the evidence presented at trial proves facts materially different from those alleged in the charging document.” Id. at ¶ 25. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Yates v. People
green
1 sentence2025“It is ‘exceedingly rare’ for a sentence to be deemed so extreme that it is grossly disproportionate to the crime.” Id. at ¶ 5 (quoting Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 1001 (1991) (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment)). ¶ 43 Relying on People v. Walker, 2022 COA 15 , the People contend that because Garcia never raised the issue of proportionality at trial, we should review the claim for plain error. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
v. Jamison
green
1 sentence2022See Reyna-Abarca, ¶ 47 (holding that “an appellate court may review an unpreserved double jeopardy claim and that the court should ordinarily review such a claim for plain error”); see generally People v. Wambolt, 2018 COA 88, ¶¶ 68-70 ; People v. Jamison, 2018 COA 121, ¶¶ 52-53 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Domingo-Gomez v. People
green
1 sentence2021And we may consider a lack of contemporaneous objection by the defendant ’s counsel as demonstrating her belief “that t he live argument, despite its appearance in a cold record, was not overly damaging.” Domingo-Gomez , 125 P.3d at 1054 . ¶ 34 Defense counsel did not object to the prosecutor’s Mickey Mouse analogy, so we review this claim for plain error. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Abarca v. People No. 13SC750, Hill v. People No. 14SC3, Medrano-Bustamante v. People No. 14SC7, People v. Smoots
green
2 sentences2018In Reyna-Abarca v. People , 2017 CO 15 , ¶ 47, 390 P.3d 816 , 823, we concluded that an appellate court may review an unpreserved double jeopardy claim and that the court should ordinarily review such a claim for plain error. 2018In Reyna-Abarca v. People , 2017 CO 15 , ¶ 47, 390 P.3d 816 , 823, we concluded that an appellate court may review an unpreserved double jeopardy claim and that the court should ordinarily review such a claim for plain error. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Chavez
green
2 sentences2015People v. Chavez, 2012 COA 61, ¶¶ 29-30 , 318 P.3d 22 . 2015People v. Chavez, 2012 COA 61, ¶¶ 29-30 , 318 P.3d 22 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.