8 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Woellhaf v. Peoplegreen2 sentences2017P. 12(b).1 But the supreme court 1The Double Jeopardy Clauses of the United States and Colorado Constitutions protect “against multiple punishments for the same 4 recently rejected this argument in People v. Zadra, 2017 CO 18, ¶ 17 , and Reyna-Abarca v. People, 2017 CO 15, ¶¶ 38-45 . ¶ 10 Reviewing defendant’s contention requires us to determine whether the court erred and, if so, whether the error requires reversal. ¶ 11 Determining whether to require the prosecution to elect a particular act on which it is relying to prove a charge involves an exercise of the district court’s discretion, see 2017See Woellhaf, 105 P.3d at 214-15, 220 . | 2 | 2 |
Thomas v. Peoplegreen2 sentences2017P. 12(b).1 But the supreme court 1The Double Jeopardy Clauses of the United States and Colorado Constitutions protect “against multiple punishments for the same 4 recently rejected this argument in People v. Zadra, 2017 CO 18, ¶ 17 , and Reyna-Abarca v. People, 2017 CO 15, ¶¶ 38-45 . ¶ 10 Reviewing defendant’s contention requires us to determine whether the court erred and, if so, whether the error requires reversal. ¶ 11 Determining whether to require the prosecution to elect a particular act on which it is relying to prove a charge involves an exercise of the district court’s discretion, see 2017P. 12(b). 1 But the supreme *841 court recently rejected this argument in People v. Zadra, 2017 CO 18 , ¶ 17, 389 P.3d 885 , and Reyna-Abarca v. People, 2017 CO 15 , ¶¶ 38-45, 390 P.3d 816 . ¶ 10 Reviewing defendant's contention requires us to determine whether the court erred and, if so, whether the error requires reversal. ¶ 11 Determining whether to require the prosecution to elect a particular act on which it is relying to prove a charge involves an exercise of the district court's discretion, see Thomas v. People, 803 P.2d 144 , 154 (Colo.1990), as does determining whether to give a parti | 1 | 2 |
People v. Vigilgreen1 sentence2025People v. Vigil, 251 P.3d 442, 448 (Colo. App. 2010). | 1 | 1 |
Whalen v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2017P. 12(b).1 But the supreme court 1The Double Jeopardy Clauses of the United States and Colorado Constitutions protect “against multiple punishments for the same 4 recently rejected this argument in People v. Zadra, 2017 CO 18, ¶ 17 , and Reyna-Abarca v. People, 2017 CO 15, ¶¶ 38-45 . ¶ 10 Reviewing defendant’s contention requires us to determine whether the court erred and, if so, whether the error requires reversal. ¶ 11 Determining whether to require the prosecution to elect a particular act on which it is relying to prove a charge involves an exercise of the district court’s discretion, see | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Elie F. Abboud (04-3942) and Michel Abboud (04-3943)green1 sentence2013E.g.,United States v. Abboud, 438 F.3d 554, 556-57 (6th Cir.2006). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Greergreen1 sentence2013P. 12(b)(2) and (3) was a result of oversight, and the multiplicity claim on appeal is not one requiring development of a factual record, see People v. Greer, 262 P.3d 920, 936 (Colo.App.2011) (J. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Renandergreen1 sentence2010People v. Renander, 151 P.3d 657, 661 (Colo.App.2006). | 1 | 1 |
Marquiz v. Peoplegreen1 sentence1996The rationale is that, in separate trials, acquittal of all but one of the alleged conspirators “could result from a multiplicity of factors completely unrelated to the actual existence of a conspiracy.” Marquiz v. People, 726 P.2d 1105, 1107 (Colo.1986). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Obie Diah Strothergreen1 sentence1986When alleged coconspirators are tried in separate proceedings, however, the reasons for the rule lose much if not all of their force. 4 There is no inherent inconsistency when different juries return different verdicts in separate trials, because the acquittal of one of the conspirators “ ‘could [result] from a multiplicity of factors completely unrelated to the actual existence of a conspiracy.’ ” Commonwealth v. Byrd, 417 A.2d at 177 (quoting United States v. Strother, 458 F.2d 424, 426 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1011 , 93 S.Ct. 456 , 34 L.Ed.2d 305 (1972)). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Andersongreen1 sentence1986See also People v. Anderson, 340 N.W.2d at 636 ; Platt v. State, 8 N.W.2d at 855 . | 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. Marks
green
2 sentences2017P. 12(b). 1 But the supreme *841 court recently rejected this argument in People v. Zadra, 2017 CO 18 , ¶ 17, 389 P.3d 885 , and Reyna-Abarca v. People, 2017 CO 15 , ¶¶ 38-45, 390 P.3d 816 . ¶ 10 Reviewing defendant's contention requires us to determine whether the court erred and, if so, whether the error requires reversal. ¶ 11 Determining whether to require the prosecution to elect a particular act on which it is relying to prove a charge involves an exercise of the district court's discretion, see Thomas v. People, 803 P.2d 144 , 154 (Colo.1990), as does determining whether to give a parti 2017P. 12(b). 1 But the supreme *841 court recently rejected this argument in People v. Zadra, 2017 CO 18 , ¶ 17, 389 P.3d 885 , and Reyna-Abarca v. People, 2017 CO 15 , ¶¶ 38-45, 390 P.3d 816 . ¶ 10 Reviewing defendant's contention requires us to determine whether the court erred and, if so, whether the error requires reversal. ¶ 11 Determining whether to require the prosecution to elect a particular act on which it is relying to prove a charge involves an exercise of the district court's discretion, see Thomas v. People, 803 P.2d 144 , 154 (Colo.1990), as does determining whether to give a parti | 2 | 2017–2017 |
v. Zadra No. 15SC262, People v. Adams
green
2 sentences2017P. 12(b). 1 But the supreme *841 court recently rejected this argument in People v. Zadra, 2017 CO 18 , ¶ 17, 389 P.3d 885 , and Reyna-Abarca v. People, 2017 CO 15 , ¶¶ 38-45, 390 P.3d 816 . ¶ 10 Reviewing defendant's contention requires us to determine whether the court erred and, if so, whether the error requires reversal. ¶ 11 Determining whether to require the prosecution to elect a particular act on which it is relying to prove a charge involves an exercise of the district court's discretion, see Thomas v. People, 803 P.2d 144 , 154 (Colo.1990), as does determining whether to give a parti 2017P. 12(b). 1 But the supreme *841 court recently rejected this argument in People v. Zadra, 2017 CO 18 , ¶ 17, 389 P.3d 885 , and Reyna-Abarca v. People, 2017 CO 15 , ¶¶ 38-45, 390 P.3d 816 . ¶ 10 Reviewing defendant's contention requires us to determine whether the court erred and, if so, whether the error requires reversal. ¶ 11 Determining whether to require the prosecution to elect a particular act on which it is relying to prove a charge involves an exercise of the district court's discretion, see Thomas v. People, 803 P.2d 144 , 154 (Colo.1990), as does determining whether to give a parti | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Abarca v. People No. 13SC750, Hill v. People No. 14SC3, Medrano-Bustamante v. People No. 14SC7, People v. Smoots
green
2 sentences2017P. 12(b). 1 But the supreme *841 court recently rejected this argument in People v. Zadra, 2017 CO 18 , ¶ 17, 389 P.3d 885 , and Reyna-Abarca v. People, 2017 CO 15 , ¶¶ 38-45, 390 P.3d 816 . ¶ 10 Reviewing defendant's contention requires us to determine whether the court erred and, if so, whether the error requires reversal. ¶ 11 Determining whether to require the prosecution to elect a particular act on which it is relying to prove a charge involves an exercise of the district court's discretion, see Thomas v. People, 803 P.2d 144 , 154 (Colo.1990), as does determining whether to give a parti 2017P. 12(b). 1 But the supreme *841 court recently rejected this argument in People v. Zadra, 2017 CO 18 , ¶ 17, 389 P.3d 885 , and Reyna-Abarca v. People, 2017 CO 15 , ¶¶ 38-45, 390 P.3d 816 . ¶ 10 Reviewing defendant's contention requires us to determine whether the court erred and, if so, whether the error requires reversal. ¶ 11 Determining whether to require the prosecution to elect a particular act on which it is relying to prove a charge involves an exercise of the district court's discretion, see Thomas v. People, 803 P.2d 144 , 154 (Colo.1990), as does determining whether to give a parti | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Platt v. State
green
1 sentence1986See also People v. Anderson, 340 N.W.2d at 636 ; Platt v. State, 8 N.W.2d at 855 . | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Commonwealth v. Byrd
green
1 sentence1986When alleged coconspirators are tried in separate proceedings, however, the reasons for the rule lose much if not all of their force. 4 There is no inherent inconsistency when different juries return different verdicts in separate trials, because the acquittal of one of the conspirators “ ‘could [result] from a multiplicity of factors completely unrelated to the actual existence of a conspiracy.’ ” Commonwealth v. Byrd, 417 A.2d at 177 (quoting United States v. Strother, 458 F.2d 424, 426 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1011 , 93 S.Ct. 456 , 34 L.Ed.2d 305 (1972)). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Chacon v. McClain
green
1 sentence1986When alleged coconspirators are tried in separate proceedings, however, the reasons for the rule lose much if not all of their force. 4 There is no inherent inconsistency when different juries return different verdicts in separate trials, because the acquittal of one of the conspirators “ ‘could [result] from a multiplicity of factors completely unrelated to the actual existence of a conspiracy.’ ” Commonwealth v. Byrd, 417 A.2d at 177 (quoting United States v. Strother, 458 F.2d 424, 426 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1011 , 93 S.Ct. 456 , 34 L.Ed.2d 305 (1972)). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Emdy v. United States
green
1 sentence1986When alleged coconspirators are tried in separate proceedings, however, the reasons for the rule lose much if not all of their force. 4 There is no inherent inconsistency when different juries return different verdicts in separate trials, because the acquittal of one of the conspirators “ ‘could [result] from a multiplicity of factors completely unrelated to the actual existence of a conspiracy.’ ” Commonwealth v. Byrd, 417 A.2d at 177 (quoting United States v. Strother, 458 F.2d 424, 426 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1011 , 93 S.Ct. 456 , 34 L.Ed.2d 305 (1972)). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.