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 1990–2026 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Spotogreen2 sentences2026“A conviction will not be overturned on appeal when the trial court [used] an erroneous standard in analyzing the admissibility” of evidence if the evidence was “admissible, and the proper foundation [was] laid for its admission.” People v. Cousins, 181 P.3d 365, 370 (Colo. App. 2007). ¶ 86 The record supports a determination the manipulation evidence was admissible under CRE 404(b) and under the four-step test announced in People v. Spoto, 795 P.2d 1314, 1318 (Colo. 1990). 2009As explained in People v. Spoto, 795 P.2d 1314 (Colo.1990), this is a four-step inquiry: 1. | 3 | 4 |
Masters v. Peoplegreen1 sentence2026The evidence 50 • related to the material fact of whether the prosecution could prove beyond a reasonable doubt defendant was sane at the time of the crime; • was logically relevant to this material fact because it provided a basis for testimony that some of defendant’s conduct was manipulative, meaning she was malingering her claim of a mental disease or defect; • had logical relevance independent of the prohibited inference that defendant committed the crime on account of her bad character because it gave the jury information with which to assess the validity of her insanity defense; and • h | 1 | 1 |
People v. Jamesgreen1 sentence2026The evidence 50 • related to the material fact of whether the prosecution could prove beyond a reasonable doubt defendant was sane at the time of the crime; • was logically relevant to this material fact because it provided a basis for testimony that some of defendant’s conduct was manipulative, meaning she was malingering her claim of a mental disease or defect; • had logical relevance independent of the prohibited inference that defendant committed the crime on account of her bad character because it gave the jury information with which to assess the validity of her insanity defense; and • h | 1 | 1 |
People v. Cousinsgreen1 sentence2026“A conviction will not be overturned on appeal when the trial court [used] an erroneous standard in analyzing the admissibility” of evidence if the evidence was “admissible, and the proper foundation [was] laid for its admission.” People v. Cousins, 181 P.3d 365, 370 (Colo. App. 2007). ¶ 86 The record supports a determination the manipulation evidence was admissible under CRE 404(b) and under the four-step test announced in People v. Spoto, 795 P.2d 1314, 1318 (Colo. 1990). | 1 | 1 |
Yusem v. Peoplegreen1 sentence2012People v. Spoto, 795 P.2d 1314, 1318 (Colo.1990); see also Yusem v. People, 210 P.3d 458, 463 (Colo.2009). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Griffingreen1 sentence2012See also People v. Griffin, 224 P.3d 292, 296 (Colo.App.2009) ("[When the prosecution seeks to admit any evidence which suggests that the defendant is a person of bad character, ... it must be prepared to explain why the logical relevance of that evidence does not depend on the inference that the defendant acted in conformity with his bad character."). {48 And under CRE 404(b), the admissibility of evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is determined by applying a four-step test. | 1 | 1 |
Melton v. City Of Oklahoma Citygreen1 sentence1998See also Melton v. City of Oklahoma City, 879 F.2d 706 (10th Cir.1989), modified, on other grounds, 928 F.2d 920 (10th Cir.1991) (en banc), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 906 , 112 S.Ct. 296 , 116 L.Ed.2d 241 (1991); Kemp v. State Board of Agriculture, 803 P.2d 498 (Colo.1990). | 1 | 1 |
Melton v. City Of Oklahoma Citygreen1 sentence1998See also Melton v. City of Oklahoma City, 879 F.2d 706 (10th Cir.1989), modified, on other grounds, 928 F.2d 920 (10th Cir.1991) (en banc), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 906 , 112 S.Ct. 296 , 116 L.Ed.2d 241 (1991); Kemp v. State Board of Agriculture, 803 P.2d 498 (Colo.1990). | 1 | 1 |
Darden v. Nationwide Mutual Insurancegreen1 sentence1998See also Melton v. City of Oklahoma City, 879 F.2d 706 (10th Cir.1989), modified, on other grounds, 928 F.2d 920 (10th Cir.1991) (en banc), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 906 , 112 S.Ct. 296 , 116 L.Ed.2d 241 (1991); Kemp v. State Board of Agriculture, 803 P.2d 498 (Colo.1990). | 1 | 1 |
American Postal Workers Union v. United States Postal Servicegreen1 sentence1998See also Melton v. City of Oklahoma City, 879 F.2d 706 (10th Cir.1989), modified, on other grounds, 928 F.2d 920 (10th Cir.1991) (en banc), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 906 , 112 S.Ct. 296 , 116 L.Ed.2d 241 (1991); Kemp v. State Board of Agriculture, 803 P.2d 498 (Colo.1990). | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Georgiagreen1 sentence1998See also Melton v. City of Oklahoma City, 879 F.2d 706 (10th Cir.1989), modified, on other grounds, 928 F.2d 920 (10th Cir.1991) (en banc), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 906 , 112 S.Ct. 296 , 116 L.Ed.2d 241 (1991); Kemp v. State Board of Agriculture, 803 P.2d 498 (Colo.1990). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Connick Ex Rel. Parish of Orleans v. Myers
green
2 sentences1998In reviewing a public employee’s First Amendment retaliation claim, we apply the four-step test derived from Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 , 88 S.Ct. 1731 , 20 L.Ed.2d 811 (1968) and Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 , 103 S.Ct. 1684 , 75 L.Ed.2d 708 (1983). 1998In reviewing a public employee’s First Amendment retaliation claim, we apply the four-step test derived from Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 , 88 S.Ct. 1731 , 20 L.Ed.2d 811 (1968) and Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 , 103 S.Ct. 1684 , 75 L.Ed.2d 708 (1983). | 2 | 1990–1998 |
Kemp v. State Board of Agriculture
green
1 sentence1998See also Melton v. City of Oklahoma City, 879 F.2d 706 (10th Cir.1989), modified, on other grounds, 928 F.2d 920 (10th Cir.1991) (en banc), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 906 , 112 S.Ct. 296 , 116 L.Ed.2d 241 (1991); Kemp v. State Board of Agriculture, 803 P.2d 498 (Colo.1990). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Pickering v. Board of Ed. of Township High School Dist. 205, Will Cty.
green
2 sentences1998In reviewing a public employee’s First Amendment retaliation claim, we apply the four-step test derived from Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 , 88 S.Ct. 1731 , 20 L.Ed.2d 811 (1968) and Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 , 103 S.Ct. 1684 , 75 L.Ed.2d 708 (1983). 1998In reviewing a public employee’s First Amendment retaliation claim, we apply the four-step test derived from Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 , 88 S.Ct. 1731 , 20 L.Ed.2d 811 (1968) and Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 , 103 S.Ct. 1684 , 75 L.Ed.2d 708 (1983). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.