compulsory joinder rule in Colorado

7 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2008 0 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.

Followed or applied (5)

Case	Followed	Cited
Jeffrey v. District Court In & For the Eighth Judicial Districtgreen colo · 1981 · cited in 5 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 1986–1989 2 sentences 1988Although the compulsory joinder rule is intended to provide broader protection than the “same offense” principle of double jeopardy and the collateral estoppel aspects of double jeopardy, Jeffrey, 626 P.2d at 636 , it is axiomatic that the “same criminal episode” element of the compulsory joinder rule is not a self-defining concept. 1987The majority recognizes that the purposes of the compulsory joinder bar of section 18-1-408(2), 8B C.R.S. (1986), are "to protect the accused against the oppressive effect of sequential prosecutions based on conduct occurring during the same criminal episode and to conserve judicial and legal resources that otherwise would be wasted in duplicative proceedings," maj. op. at 916 (quoting Jeffrey v. District Court, 626 P.2d 631, 637 (Colo.1981)), but then goes on to read into the "same criminal episode" the requirement that the multiple offenses either arise from "the same conduct of the defendan	4	5
Corr v. DIST. CT. IN & FOR EIGHTH JUD. DIST.green colo · 1983 · cited in 5 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 1986–1989 2 sentences 1987The plain language of section 18-1-408(2) extends the compulsory joinder bar to offenses "based on the same act or series of acts arising from the same criminal episode." If the legislature intended to limit the compulsory joinder bar to offenses arising from the "same conduct" or to offenses "involving substantially interrelated proof," it clearly would have employed appropriate language expressive of those limiting concepts, especially since it has utilized similar terms of limitation in other sections of the Colorado Criminal Code. [1] In Corr v. District Court, 661 P.2d 668 (Colo.1983), th 1987We then observed that, for purposes of compulsory joinder, offenses arising out of "the same criminal episode" would include crimes committed simultaneously or in close sequence, crimes occurring in the same place or closely related places, and crimes that form part of a schematic whole, but hastened to add that the existence of all three components is not an indispensable prerequisite to compulsory joinder. *921 661 P.2d at 673. [2] In holding that the compulsory joinder bar of section 18-1-408(2) barred Corr's prosecution for the drug offense, we stated: We recognize that, in the last analys	3	5
People v. Rogersgreen colo · 1987 · cited in 2 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 1988–2008 2 sentences 2008The Bossert holding was recognized but found not controlling in People v. Rogers, 742 P.2d 912, 916 (Colo.1987) (explaining reasons for Bossert rule but finding no waiver where defendant raised compulsory joinder before second trial began). 1988Recently, in People v. Rogers, 742 P.2d 912 (Colo.1987), we held that the compulsory joinder rule did not bar a prosecution for the felonies of cultivation of marijuana, conspiracy to commit that offense, and possession of more than eight ounces of marijuana, when in a separate prosecution the defendant had been charged with and had pled guilty to the misdemeanor offense of unlawful possession of raptor talons, even though all of the offenses were committed at virtually the same time in the defendant’s home and the separate prosecutions were based on evidence discovered during a single search	1	2
People v. Wrightgreen colo · 1987 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 1989–1989 1 sentence 1989See People v. Wright, 742 P.2d 316, 318 (Colo.1987); Corr v. District Court, 661 P.2d 668 , 671 (Colo.1983); Jeffrey v. District Court, 626 P.2d 631, 637 (Colo.1981).	1	1
Commonwealth v. Hudegreen pa · 1983 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 1988–1988 2 sentences 1988The term “episode” connotes a set of events or occurrences that bear some distinctive relationship to each other, see Webster’s Third International Dictionary 765 (1986), and has its counterpart in the civil law concept of “transaction.” See Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 , 454 n. 8, 90 S.Ct. 1189 , 1199 n. 8, 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970) (Brennan, J., concurring); Commonwealth v. Hude, 500 Pa. 482 , 458 A.2d 177, 181-82 (1983). 1988The term “episode” connotes a set of events or occurrences that bear some distinctive relationship to each other, see Webster’s Third International Dictionary 765 (1986), and has its counterpart in the civil law concept of “transaction.” See Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 , 454 n. 8, 90 S.Ct. 1189 , 1199 n. 8, 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970) (Brennan, J., concurring); Commonwealth v. Hude, 500 Pa. 482 , 458 A.2d 177, 181-82 (1983).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (13)

Case	Cited	Years
Brutcher v. DISTRICT COURT OF NINETEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT green colo · 1978 2 sentences 1988See, e.g., Corr, 661 P.2d 668 ; Jeffrey, 626 P.2d 631 ; Brutcher v. District Court, 195 Colo. 579 , 580 P.2d 396 (1978); People v. Tulipane, 192 Colo. 476 , 560 P.2d 94 (1977). 1988See, e.g., Corr, 661 P.2d 668 ; Jeffrey, 626 P.2d 631 ; Brutcher v. District Court, 195 Colo. 579 , 580 P.2d 396 (1978); People v. Tulipane, 192 Colo. 476 , 560 P.2d 94 (1977).	2	1987–1988
People v. Tulipane green colo · 1977 2 sentences 1987We have repeatedly stated that a closer connection between two or more offenses must be established before they are deemed to arise from "the same criminal episode." See People v. Freeman, 196 Colo. 238 , 583 P.2d 921 (1978) (the compulsory joinder rule is designed to prevent the state from bringing successive prosecutions for the same criminal conduct); People v. Tulipane, 192 Colo. 476 , 560 P.2d 94 (1977) (the purpose of the compulsory joinder statute is to prevent the bringing of successive prosecutions based upon essentially the same conduct); People v. Walker, 189 Colo. 545 , 542 P.2d 12 1987We have repeatedly stated that a closer connection between two or more offenses must be established before they are deemed to arise from "the same criminal episode." See People v. Freeman, 196 Colo. 238 , 583 P.2d 921 (1978) (the compulsory joinder rule is designed to prevent the state from bringing successive prosecutions for the same criminal conduct); People v. Tulipane, 192 Colo. 476 , 560 P.2d 94 (1977) (the purpose of the compulsory joinder statute is to prevent the bringing of successive prosecutions based upon essentially the same conduct); People v. Walker, 189 Colo. 545 , 542 P.2d 12	2	1987–1988
People v. Robinson green colo · 1989 1 sentence 2008That legislative history shows that the intent of the 1994 amendment was to narrow the cireumstances in which a defendant could seek dismissal for noncompliance with the compulsory joinder requirement. *1230 During hearings on the proposed amendment, Raymond Slaughter, Executive Director of the Colorado District Attorneys Council, testified that the amendment was intended to avoid the sort of "procedural trickery" by defendants that was reflected in cases such as People v. Robinson, 774 P.2d 884 (Colo.1989), and People v. McCormick, 839 P.2d 474 (Colo.App.1992), rev'd, 859 P.2d 846 (Colo.1993)	1	2008–2008
People v. McCormick green coloctapp · 1992 1 sentence 2008That legislative history shows that the intent of the 1994 amendment was to narrow the cireumstances in which a defendant could seek dismissal for noncompliance with the compulsory joinder requirement. *1230 During hearings on the proposed amendment, Raymond Slaughter, Executive Director of the Colorado District Attorneys Council, testified that the amendment was intended to avoid the sort of "procedural trickery" by defendants that was reflected in cases such as People v. Robinson, 774 P.2d 884 (Colo.1989), and People v. McCormick, 839 P.2d 474 (Colo.App.1992), rev'd, 859 P.2d 846 (Colo.1993)	1	2008–2008
People v. Bossert green colo · 1986 1 sentence 2008In so holding, the court reasoned that, where the defendant does not raise the issue of joinder until after the see-ond trial, the public policy reasons for the compulsory joinder rule-namely, protection of the accused against oppressive sequential prosecutions and conservation of judicial and legal resourceese-would not be served, because "the harm, if any, has occurred." Id. at 1011 .	1	2008–2008
People v. McCormick green colo · 1993 1 sentence 2008That legislative history shows that the intent of the 1994 amendment was to narrow the cireumstances in which a defendant could seek dismissal for noncompliance with the compulsory joinder requirement. *1230 During hearings on the proposed amendment, Raymond Slaughter, Executive Director of the Colorado District Attorneys Council, testified that the amendment was intended to avoid the sort of "procedural trickery" by defendants that was reflected in cases such as People v. Robinson, 774 P.2d 884 (Colo.1989), and People v. McCormick, 839 P.2d 474 (Colo.App.1992), rev'd, 859 P.2d 846 (Colo.1993)	1	2008–2008
Ashe v. Swenson green scotus · 1970 2 sentences 1988The term “episode” connotes a set of events or occurrences that bear some distinctive relationship to each other, see Webster’s Third International Dictionary 765 (1986), and has its counterpart in the civil law concept of “transaction.” See Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 , 454 n. 8, 90 S.Ct. 1189 , 1199 n. 8, 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970) (Brennan, J., concurring); Commonwealth v. Hude, 500 Pa. 482 , 458 A.2d 177, 181-82 (1983). 1988The term “episode” connotes a set of events or occurrences that bear some distinctive relationship to each other, see Webster’s Third International Dictionary 765 (1986), and has its counterpart in the civil law concept of “transaction.” See Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 , 454 n. 8, 90 S.Ct. 1189 , 1199 n. 8, 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970) (Brennan, J., concurring); Commonwealth v. Hude, 500 Pa. 482 , 458 A.2d 177, 181-82 (1983).	1	1988–1988
Ruth v. COUNTY COURT IN & FOR CTY. OF EL PASO green colo · 1979 2 sentences 1987See, e.g., Jeffrey v. District Court, supra ; Ruth v. County Court, 198 Colo. 6 , 595 P.2d 237 (1979). 1987See, e.g., Jeffrey v. District Court, supra ; Ruth v. County Court, 198 Colo. 6 , 595 P.2d 237 (1979).	1	1987–1987
People v. Cooke green colo · 1974 2 sentences 1987We have repeatedly stated that a closer connection between two or more offenses must be established before they are deemed to arise from "the same criminal episode." See People v. Freeman, 196 Colo. 238 , 583 P.2d 921 (1978) (the compulsory joinder rule is designed to prevent the state from bringing successive prosecutions for the same criminal conduct); People v. Tulipane, 192 Colo. 476 , 560 P.2d 94 (1977) (the purpose of the compulsory joinder statute is to prevent the bringing of successive prosecutions based upon essentially the same conduct); People v. Walker, 189 Colo. 545 , 542 P.2d 12 1987We have repeatedly stated that a closer connection between two or more offenses must be established before they are deemed to arise from "the same criminal episode." See People v. Freeman, 196 Colo. 238 , 583 P.2d 921 (1978) (the compulsory joinder rule is designed to prevent the state from bringing successive prosecutions for the same criminal conduct); People v. Tulipane, 192 Colo. 476 , 560 P.2d 94 (1977) (the purpose of the compulsory joinder statute is to prevent the bringing of successive prosecutions based upon essentially the same conduct); People v. Walker, 189 Colo. 545 , 542 P.2d 12	1	1987–1987
People v. Walker green colo · 1975 2 sentences 1987We have repeatedly stated that a closer connection between two or more offenses must be established before they are deemed to arise from "the same criminal episode." See People v. Freeman, 196 Colo. 238 , 583 P.2d 921 (1978) (the compulsory joinder rule is designed to prevent the state from bringing successive prosecutions for the same criminal conduct); People v. Tulipane, 192 Colo. 476 , 560 P.2d 94 (1977) (the purpose of the compulsory joinder statute is to prevent the bringing of successive prosecutions based upon essentially the same conduct); People v. Walker, 189 Colo. 545 , 542 P.2d 12 1987We have repeatedly stated that a closer connection between two or more offenses must be established before they are deemed to arise from "the same criminal episode." See People v. Freeman, 196 Colo. 238 , 583 P.2d 921 (1978) (the compulsory joinder rule is designed to prevent the state from bringing successive prosecutions for the same criminal conduct); People v. Tulipane, 192 Colo. 476 , 560 P.2d 94 (1977) (the purpose of the compulsory joinder statute is to prevent the bringing of successive prosecutions based upon essentially the same conduct); People v. Walker, 189 Colo. 545 , 542 P.2d 12	1	1987–1987
People v. Pinyan green colo · 1976 2 sentences 1987In People v. Pinyan, 190 Colo. 304 , 546 P.2d 488 (1976), this court dealt with the applicability of the compulsory joinder bar to successive prosecutions in municipal and state courts for different offenses arising out of the same criminal episode. 1987In People v. Pinyan, 190 Colo. 304 , 546 P.2d 488 (1976), this court dealt with the applicability of the compulsory joinder bar to successive prosecutions in municipal and state courts for different offenses arising out of the same criminal episode.	1	1987–1987
People v. Freeman green colo · 1978 2 sentences 1987We have repeatedly stated that a closer connection between two or more offenses must be established before they are deemed to arise from "the same criminal episode." See People v. Freeman, 196 Colo. 238 , 583 P.2d 921 (1978) (the compulsory joinder rule is designed to prevent the state from bringing successive prosecutions for the same criminal conduct); People v. Tulipane, 192 Colo. 476 , 560 P.2d 94 (1977) (the purpose of the compulsory joinder statute is to prevent the bringing of successive prosecutions based upon essentially the same conduct); People v. Walker, 189 Colo. 545 , 542 P.2d 12 1987We have repeatedly stated that a closer connection between two or more offenses must be established before they are deemed to arise from "the same criminal episode." See People v. Freeman, 196 Colo. 238 , 583 P.2d 921 (1978) (the compulsory joinder rule is designed to prevent the state from bringing successive prosecutions for the same criminal conduct); People v. Tulipane, 192 Colo. 476 , 560 P.2d 94 (1977) (the purpose of the compulsory joinder statute is to prevent the bringing of successive prosecutions based upon essentially the same conduct); People v. Walker, 189 Colo. 545 , 542 P.2d 12	1	1987–1987
People v. DISTRICT COURT IN & FOR COUNTY OF ADAMS green colo · 1973 2 sentences 1986Although the constitutional proscriptions against double jeopardy form the basis of the compulsory joinder rule, People v. District Court, 183 Colo. 101 , 515 P.2d 101 (1973), the rule is broader than the constitutional limitation, Corr v. District Court, 661 P.2d 668 (Colo.1983). 1986Although the constitutional proscriptions against double jeopardy form the basis of the compulsory joinder rule, People v. District Court, 183 Colo. 101 , 515 P.2d 101 (1973), the rule is broader than the constitutional limitation, Corr v. District Court, 661 P.2d 668 (Colo.1983).	1	1986–1986

Statutes the citing opinions construe

CO § Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-408 (7) CO § Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-12-102 (4)

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.

Where else courts name it

PA 155 (1983–2026) IL 28 (2006–2026) KS 13 (1979–2024) NM 10 (1992–2025) MI 8 (1979–2024) NJ 8 (1975–2015) CO 7 (1986–2008) TX 5 (1993–2009) CA 3 (2015–2020) WV 2 (1996–2004) HI 2 (1991–2008) MD 2 (1988–2009) ND 2 (1989–1996) OH 2 (2002–2011)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check