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.
6 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2015 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
EATON CORPORATION v. Simongreen2 sentences2015Id . at 282; People v. Crawford , 891 P.2d 255, 258 (Colo. 1995). 2015Id. at 282 ; People v. Crawford, 891 P.2d 255, 258 (Colo.1995). | 2 | 3 |
California v. Trombettagreen2 sentences2002People v. Raibon, 843 P.2d 46, 48-49 (Colo.App. 1992); see discussion, infra. [7] Because no actual destruction of evidence occurred here, the trial court erred by applying the three-pronged destruction of evidence standard set forth in Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 , 104 S.Ct. 2528 , 81 L.Ed.2d 413 , and Greathouse, 742 P.2d 334 . 2002People v. Raibon, 843 P.2d 46, 48-49 (Colo.App. 1992); see discussion, infra. [7] Because no actual destruction of evidence occurred here, the trial court erred by applying the three-pronged destruction of evidence standard set forth in Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 , 104 S.Ct. 2528 , 81 L.Ed.2d 413 , and Greathouse, 742 P.2d 334 . | 1 | 1 |
People v. Greathousegreen2 sentences2002People v. Raibon, 843 P.2d 46, 48-49 (Colo.App. 1992); see discussion, infra. [7] Because no actual destruction of evidence occurred here, the trial court erred by applying the three-pronged destruction of evidence standard set forth in Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 , 104 S.Ct. 2528 , 81 L.Ed.2d 413 , and Greathouse, 742 P.2d 334 . 2002Because no actual destruction of evidence occurred here, the trial court erred by applying the three-pronged destruction of evidence standard set forth in Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 , 104 S.Ct. 2528 , 81 L.Ed.2d 413 , and Greathouse, 742 P.2d 334 . | 1 | 1 |
People v. Raibongreen1 sentence2002People v. Raibon, 843 P.2d 46, 48-49 (Colo.App. 1992); see discussion, infra. [7] Because no actual destruction of evidence occurred here, the trial court erred by applying the three-pronged destruction of evidence standard set forth in Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 , 104 S.Ct. 2528 , 81 L.Ed.2d 413 , and Greathouse, 742 P.2d 334 . | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hollowaygreen1 sentence1983See also People v. Holloway, 649 P.2d 318 (Colo.1982); People v. Garries, 645 P.2d 1306 (1982); People v. Morgan, 199 Colo. 237 , 606 P.2d 1296 (1980); People v. Gomez, 198 Colo. 105 , 596 P.2d 1192 (1979). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mendez v. People
green
1 sentence2015Id. at 282 ; People v. Crawford, 891 P.2d 255, 258 (Colo.1995). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Clements
green
1 sentence1985The purpose of the destruction of evidence rule is to protect the “integrity of the truth finding process and to deter police misconduct.” People v. Clements, 661 P.2d 267 (Colo.1983). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
People v. Morgan
green
2 sentences1983See also People v. Holloway, 649 P.2d 318 (Colo.1982); People v. Garries, 645 P.2d 1306 (1982); People v. Morgan, 199 Colo. 237 , 606 P.2d 1296 (1980); People v. Gomez, 198 Colo. 105 , 596 P.2d 1192 (1979). 1983See also People v. Holloway, 649 P.2d 318 (Colo.1982); People v. Garries, 645 P.2d 1306 (1982); People v. Morgan, 199 Colo. 237 , 606 P.2d 1296 (1980); People v. Gomez, 198 Colo. 105 , 596 P.2d 1192 (1979). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
People v. Gomez
green
2 sentences1983See also People v. Holloway, 649 P.2d 318 (Colo.1982); People v. Garries, 645 P.2d 1306 (1982); People v. Morgan, 199 Colo. 237 , 606 P.2d 1296 (1980); People v. Gomez, 198 Colo. 105 , 596 P.2d 1192 (1979). 1983See also People v. Holloway, 649 P.2d 318 (Colo.1982); People v. Garries, 645 P.2d 1306 (1982); People v. Morgan, 199 Colo. 237 , 606 P.2d 1296 (1980); People v. Gomez, 198 Colo. 105 , 596 P.2d 1192 (1979). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
People v. Garries
green
2 sentences1983See also People v. Holloway, 649 P.2d 318 (Colo.1982); People v. Garries, 645 P.2d 1306 (1982); People v. Morgan, 199 Colo. 237 , 606 P.2d 1296 (1980); People v. Gomez, 198 Colo. 105 , 596 P.2d 1192 (1979). 1983Id. at 1308 . | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.