impending error in Colorado

2026See People v. Coughlin, 304 P.3d 575, 582 (Colo. App. 2011) (“Even if an objection to evidence does not specifically identify the rule underlying the objection, it is nonetheless sufficient to preserve an issue for appeal if the objecting attorney presents 21 arguments or utilizes language that alerts the trial court to the impending error.”). 2.

2025See People v. Coughlin, 304 P.3d 575, 582 (Colo. App. 2011) (“Even if an objection to evidence does not specifically identify the rule underlying the objection, it is nonetheless sufficient to preserve an issue for appeal if the objecting [party] presents arguments or utilizes language that alerts the trial court to the impending error.”).

2024Cf. Sure-Shock Elec., Inc. v. Diamond Lofts Venture, LLC, 2014 COA 111, ¶ 13 (“The purpose of the notice requirement [for mechanics’ liens] is to allow property owners to pay their debts before a lien is filed.”).

2024Section 42-9-113 states that “[t]he customer shall first make written demand for the customer’s damages from the motor vehicle repair facility by certified mail at least ten days prior to the filing of any such action, exclusive of Saturday, Sunday, and any legal holiday.” “Damages are a measure of the loss or harm, generally in the form of pecuniary compensation, resulting from an injury suffered by a person 8 because of the unlawful act, omission, or negligence of another.” Wilcox v. Clark, 42 P.3d 29, 30 (Colo. App. 2001). ¶ 18 Like other notice and demand statutes, the purpose behind secti

2014See People v. Coughlin, 304 P.3d 575 , 582 (Colo. App. 2011) (objection "sufficient to preserve an issue for appeal if the objecting attorney presents arguments or utilizes language that alerts the trial court to the impending error"). ¶ 9 Still, citing People v. Cook, 22 P.3d 947 (Colo. App. 2000), the Attorney General argues that because defense counsel implicitly agreed with the court's reliance on its admonitions, Jacobson cannot now argue that the court erred in refusing to poll the jury.

2009In other words, even if an objection does not specifically identify the rule underlying the objection, it may nonetheless be sufficient to preserve an issue for appeal if the objecting attorney presents arguments or utilizes language that "alert[s] the trial judge to the impending error." People v. Montague, 181 Colo. 143, 145 , 508 P.2d 388, 389 (1973); see also U.S. v. Wilson, 966 F.2d 248, 245 (7th Cir.1992) (finding a prejudice objection was not preserved where defendant "did not raise Rule 408 or even mention the prejudicial effect of the gun before the district court").

2009In other words, even if an objection does not specifically identify the rule underlying the objection, it may nonetheless be sufficient to preserve an issue for appeal if the objecting attorney presents arguments or utilizes language that "alert[s] the trial judge to the impending error." People v. Montague, 181 Colo. 143, 145 , 508 P.2d 388, 389 (1973); see also U.S. v. Wilson, 966 F.2d 248, 245 (7th Cir.1992) (finding a prejudice objection was not preserved where defendant "did not raise Rule 408 or even mention the prejudicial effect of the gun before the district court").