jury a limiting instruction in Colorado

2026See People v. Vialpando, 954 P.2d 617, 623 (Colo. App. 1997) (limiting instructions mitigate the danger of unfair prejudice). ¶ 28 Accordingly, because we agree with the trial court’s application of the Spoto factors and CRE 404(b), we perceive no error in its admission of Nelson’s testimony about the stolen backpack and the threats Torreyson made to Paul and Jamie.

2021“Res gestae evidenc e is ‘matter incidental to the main fact and explanatory of it, including acts and words which are so closely connected therewit h as to constitute a part of the transaction, and without knowledg e of which the main fact might not be properly understood.’” People v. Rollins , 892 P.2d 866, 872-73 (Colo. 1995) (quoting Woertman v. People , 804 P.2d 188 , 190 n.3 (Colo. 1991)). ¶ 38 Res gestae evidence is “linked in time and circum stances with the charged crime, or forms an integral and natural part of an account of the crime, or is necessary to complete the story of the cri

2021“Res gestae evidenc e is ‘matter incidental to the main fact and explanatory of it, including acts and words which are so closely connected therewit h as to constitute a part of the transaction, and without knowledg e of which the main fact might not be properly understood.’” People v. Rollins , 892 P.2d 866, 872-73 (Colo. 1995) (quoting Woertman v. People , 804 P.2d 188 , 190 n.3 (Colo. 1991)). ¶ 38 Res gestae evidence is “linked in time and circum stances with the charged crime, or forms an integral and natural part of an account of the crime, or is necessary to complete the story of the cri

2021People v. Quintana , 882 P.2d 1366, 1373 (Colo. 1994); see People v. Czemerynski , 786 P.2d 1100, 1109 (Colo. 1990) (concluding that res gestae evidence need not meet the procedural requirement s of 14 CRE 404(b)); People v. Griffiths , 251 P.3d 462, 467 (Colo. A pp. 2010) (concluding that a trial court can admit res gestae evidence without giving the jury a limiting instruction).

2021People v. Quintana , 882 P.2d 1366, 1373 (Colo. 1994); see People v. Czemerynski , 786 P.2d 1100, 1109 (Colo. 1990) (concluding that res gestae evidence need not meet the procedural requirement s of 14 CRE 404(b)); People v. Griffiths , 251 P.3d 462, 467 (Colo. A pp. 2010) (concluding that a trial court can admit res gestae evidence without giving the jury a limiting instruction).

2021“Res gestae evidenc e is ‘matter incidental to the main fact and explanatory of it, including acts and words which are so closely connected therewit h as to constitute a part of the transaction, and without knowledg e of which the main fact might not be properly understood.’” People v. Rollins , 892 P.2d 866, 872-73 (Colo. 1995) (quoting Woertman v. People , 804 P.2d 188 , 190 n.3 (Colo. 1991)). ¶ 38 Res gestae evidence is “linked in time and circum stances with the charged crime, or forms an integral and natural part of an account of the crime, or is necessary to complete the story of the cri

2021People v. Quintana , 882 P.2d 1366, 1373 (Colo. 1994); see People v. Czemerynski , 786 P.2d 1100, 1109 (Colo. 1990) (concluding that res gestae evidence need not meet the procedural requirement s of 14 CRE 404(b)); People v. Griffiths , 251 P.3d 462, 467 (Colo. A pp. 2010) (concluding that a trial court can admit res gestae evidence without giving the jury a limiting instruction).

2010See Jackson, 328 Ill.Dec. 1 , 903 N.E.2d at 402 (suggesting such an instruction may be appropriate).

2010See Jackson, 328 Ill.Dec. 1 , 903 N.E.2d at 402 (suggesting such an instruction may be appropriate).

2008People v. Dunlap, 975 P.2d 723, 743 (Colo.1999) (absent evidence to the contrary, appellate court must presume that a jury followed the court's instructions). 2.

2003See People v. Harlan, 8 P.3d 448 (Colo.2000)(court must afford the evidence the maximum probative weight and minimum prejudicial effect reasonably to be expected).