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.
8 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Seegars v. Stategreen2 sentences2010The Spuchler court held that the defendant was automatically barred from raising an inconsistent defense, reasoning that "[when a defendant, who has a right of election as to several defenses, takes the stand as a witness and makes such admissions as to render every theory of defense unavailable save one, he will be deemed to have elected that one." Id. (quoting Seegars v. State, 655 P.2d 563, 565 (Okla.Crim.App.1982); Jones v. State, 555 P.2d 1061, 1070 (Okla.Crim.App.1976)). 2010The Spuehler court held that the defendant was automatically barred from raising an inconsistent defense, reasoning that "[w]hen a defendant, who has a right of election as to several defenses, takes the stand as a witness and makes such admissions as to render every theory of defense unavailable save one, he will be deemed to have elected that one." Id. (quoting Seegars v. State, 655 P.2d 563, 565 (Okla.Crim.App.1982); Jones v. State, 555 P.2d 1061, 1070 (Okla.Crim.App.1976)). | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. Stategreen2 sentences2010The Spuchler court held that the defendant was automatically barred from raising an inconsistent defense, reasoning that "[when a defendant, who has a right of election as to several defenses, takes the stand as a witness and makes such admissions as to render every theory of defense unavailable save one, he will be deemed to have elected that one." Id. (quoting Seegars v. State, 655 P.2d 563, 565 (Okla.Crim.App.1982); Jones v. State, 555 P.2d 1061, 1070 (Okla.Crim.App.1976)). 2010The Spuehler court held that the defendant was automatically barred from raising an inconsistent defense, reasoning that "[w]hen a defendant, who has a right of election as to several defenses, takes the stand as a witness and makes such admissions as to render every theory of defense unavailable save one, he will be deemed to have elected that one." Id. (quoting Seegars v. State, 655 P.2d 563, 565 (Okla.Crim.App.1982); Jones v. State, 555 P.2d 1061, 1070 (Okla.Crim.App.1976)). | 1 | 1 |
People v. CALVARESTgreen2 sentences1996See id.; see also People v. Calvaresi, 188 Colo. 277, 282 , 534 P.2d 316, 318 (1975) ("A statute which prescribes different degrees of punishment for the same acts committed under like circumstances by persons in like situations is violative of a *1268 person's right to equal protection of the laws."). 1996See id.; see also People v. Calvaresi, 188 Colo. 277, 282 , 534 P.2d 316, 318 (1975) ("A statute which prescribes different degrees of punishment for the same acts committed under like circumstances by persons in like situations is violative of a *1268 person's right to equal protection of the laws."). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mathews v. United States
green
2 sentences2012While the supreme court's holding in Brown only addressed lesser included offenses, the division of this court deciding Brown, 218 P.3d 733 (Colo.App.2009), specifically addressed the United States Supreme Court's holding in Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 63 , 108 S.Ct. 883 , 99 L.Ed.2d 54 (1988), that a defendant claiming complete innocence may also raise an inconsistent defense of entrapment. 2012While the supreme court's holding in Brown only addressed lesser included offenses, the division of this court deciding Brown, 218 P.3d 733 (Colo.App.2009), specifically addressed the United States Supreme Court's holding in Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 63 , 108 S.Ct. 883 , 99 L.Ed.2d 54 (1988), that a defendant claiming complete innocence may also raise an inconsistent defense of entrapment. | 2 | 2009–2012 |
People v. Gregoryd
green
1 sentence2024“Nor does the fact that a defendant may have an inconsistent defense necessarily entitle [her] to a separate trial.” Id. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Brown v. People
green
1 sentence2018The supreme court decided that under the circumstances of Brown’s case, the principal policy arguments for denying the defendant his requested instruction — namely, “that allowing an inconsistent instruction would be contrary to ‘honesty and good faith’ and/or encourage perjury” — were “substantially mitigated.” Id. at 768-69 . ¶ 30 Here, the trial court viewed defendant’s assertions of both self- defense and accident as inconsistent. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Brown
green
2 sentences2012While the supreme court's holding in Brown only addressed lesser included offenses, the division of this court deciding Brown, 218 P.3d 733 (Colo.App.2009), specifically addressed the United States Supreme Court's holding in Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 63 , 108 S.Ct. 883 , 99 L.Ed.2d 54 (1988), that a defendant claiming complete innocence may also raise an inconsistent defense of entrapment. 2012The Brown division acknowledged prior precedent declining to follow Mathews, see Grizzle, 140 P.3d at 225-26 ; Hendrickson, 45 P.3d at 786 , and recognized Mathews was not binding because it addressed federal criminal law not rooted in the United States Constitution. 218 P.3d at 738 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
People v. Grizzle
green
1 sentence2012The Brown division acknowledged prior precedent declining to follow Mathews, see Grizzle, 140 P.3d at 225-26 ; Hendrickson, 45 P.3d at 786 , and recognized Mathews was not binding because it addressed federal criminal law not rooted in the United States Constitution. 218 P.3d at 738 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
People v. Hendrickson
green
1 sentence2012The Brown division acknowledged prior precedent declining to follow Mathews, see Grizzle, 140 P.3d at 225-26 ; Hendrickson, 45 P.3d at 786 , and recognized Mathews was not binding because it addressed federal criminal law not rooted in the United States Constitution. 218 P.3d at 738 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Spuehler v. State
green
2 sentences2010The Spuchler court held that the defendant was automatically barred from raising an inconsistent defense, reasoning that "[when a defendant, who has a right of election as to several defenses, takes the stand as a witness and makes such admissions as to render every theory of defense unavailable save one, he will be deemed to have elected that one." Id. (quoting Seegars v. State, 655 P.2d 563, 565 (Okla.Crim.App.1982); Jones v. State, 555 P.2d 1061, 1070 (Okla.Crim.App.1976)). 2010The Spuehler court held that the defendant was automatically barred from raising an inconsistent defense, reasoning that "[w]hen a defendant, who has a right of election as to several defenses, takes the stand as a witness and makes such admissions as to render every theory of defense unavailable save one, he will be deemed to have elected that one." Id. (quoting Seegars v. State, 655 P.2d 563, 565 (Okla.Crim.App.1982); Jones v. State, 555 P.2d 1061, 1070 (Okla.Crim.App.1976)). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Eli B. Jones, of the Estate of Jesse L. Bobo, Deceased v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, in Its Corporate Capacity
green
1 sentence1999Jones v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., 748 F.2d 1400 (10th Cir.1984). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
United States v. Charles Patrick Dill, Robert Eugene Brown, A/K/A Sidney Ray Griffin
green
1 sentence1984United States v. Dill, supra. In addition, neither defendant took the stand, nor presented any evidence whatsoever. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.