6 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 2010–2024 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. DeBellagreen2 sentences2024Analysis ¶ 49 In Debella, our supreme court held that a district court failed to ensure that evidence given to a jury with unfettered access during deliberations would not be given undue weight or emphasis because it “did not (1) give a limiting instruction with respect to the victim’s videotaped statement; (2) wait for a jury request to review the videotape; or (3) obtain counsel’s agreement to allow the jury to have access to the tape.” 233 P.3d at 668 (quoting People v. DeBella, 219 P.3d 390, 404 (Colo. App. 2009) (Daily, J., dissenting)). ¶ 50 In this case, however, the district court appr 2024Analysis ¶ 49 In Debella, our supreme court held that a district court failed to ensure that evidence given to a jury with unfettered access during deliberations would not be given undue weight or emphasis because it “did not (1) give a limiting instruction with respect to the victim’s videotaped statement; (2) wait for a jury request to review the videotape; or (3) obtain counsel’s agreement to allow the jury to have access to the tape.” 233 P.3d at 668 (quoting People v. DeBella, 219 P.3d 390, 404 (Colo. App. 2009) (Daily, J., dissenting)). ¶ 50 In this case, however, the district court appr | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
DeBELLA v. People
green
2 sentences2015Id. â[I]f the influence of the error on the trial is apparent, or if one is left in grave doubt as to its effect on the verdict or the fairness of the trial proceedings, the conviction cannot stand.â Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). ¶41        We conclude that the trial courtâs failure to exercise its discretion with respect to the juryâs access to the recording was harmless. 2015Id. â[I]f the influence of the error on the trial is apparent, or if one is left in grave doubt as to its effect on the verdict or the fairness of the trial proceedings, the conviction cannot stand.â Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). ¶41        We conclude that the trial courtâs failure to exercise its discretion with respect to the juryâs access to the recording was harmless. | 5 | 2014–2024 |
People v. Welsh
green
2 sentences2024“However, if the influence of the error on the trial is apparent, or if one is left ‘in grave doubt’ as to its effect on the verdict or the fairness of the trial proceedings, the conviction cannot stand.” Id. (quoting Welsh, 80 P.3d at 310 ). 20 C. 2024“However, if the influence of the error on the trial is apparent, or if one is left ‘in grave doubt’ as to its effect on the verdict or the fairness of the trial proceedings, the conviction cannot stand.” Id. (quoting Welsh, 80 P.3d at 310 ). 20 C. | 2 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Quintana
green
1 sentence2010Id. (citing Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 765 , 66 S.Ct. 1239 , 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946)). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Kotteakos v. United States
green
2 sentences2010Id. (citing Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 765 , 66 S.Ct. 1239 , 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946)). 2010Id. (citing Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 765 , 66 S.Ct. 1239 , 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946)). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
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.