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 2003–2026 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. Simpsongreen1 sentence2026See Davis v. People, 2013 CO 57 , ¶ 21 (stating that a trial court doesn’t have a “duty” to provide a cautionary instruction sua sponte when one isn’t requested by counsel or required by statute, and under these circumstances, the lack of a limiting instruction “does not constitute reversible error”); People v. Simpson, 93 P.3d 551, 555 (Colo. App. 2003) (declining to consider “a bald legal proposition presented without argument or development”). | 1 | 1 |
Martin v. Peoplegreen1 sentence2026In the end, the jury’s decision to acquit Shockey of the most serious charge indicates “that the jurors exercised some discretion in their deliberations and did not blindly convict the defendant based upon [improper] inferences.” Martin v. People, 738 P.2d 789, 795-96 (Colo. 1987). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Clarkgreen1 sentence2025But defense counsel didn’t ask for a limiting instruction, and a court is under no obligation to sua sponte issue one that isn’t otherwise required by statute.4 People v. Griffin, 224 P.3d 292, 298 (Colo. App. 2009); see also People v. Clark, 2015 COA 44, ¶ 135 (concluding that the lack of a limiting instruction wasn’t error when defense counsel neither requested one nor offered any legal support showing that one was required). 3 Parks doesn’t argue that the statements had any bearing on the trespass charge. 4 Even beyond not requesting a limiting instruction, during trial, defense counsel agr | 1 | 1 |
People v. Constantgreen1 sentence2025See People v. Constant, 645 P.2d 843, 846 (Colo. 1982) (noting that a prosecutor may draw reasonable inferences as to the demeanor of a witness). ¶ 29 Finally, we reject Parks’s claim that he suffered prejudice because a juror asked whether a bodycam video was available to show “interactions between officer and [Parks]?” Not only did the court not ask the question, but the question was not directed at Officer Casados. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Griffingreen1 sentence2025But defense counsel didn’t ask for a limiting instruction, and a court is under no obligation to sua sponte issue one that isn’t otherwise required by statute.4 People v. Griffin, 224 P.3d 292, 298 (Colo. App. 2009); see also People v. Clark, 2015 COA 44, ¶ 135 (concluding that the lack of a limiting instruction wasn’t error when defense counsel neither requested one nor offered any legal support showing that one was required). 3 Parks doesn’t argue that the statements had any bearing on the trespass charge. 4 Even beyond not requesting a limiting instruction, during trial, defense counsel agr | 1 | 1 |
Masters v. Peoplegreen1 sentence2009In Masters v. People, 58 P.3d 979, 1002 (Colo. 2002), we upheld the admission of the defendant's drawings into evidence despite the lack of a limiting instruction, where defense counsel did not request an instruction when the evidence was first introduced and later refused the court's offered instruction at the close of the evidence. . - As was the case with the admissibility of other act evidence, because we hold that reversal of Kaufman's convictions is necessary due to the erroneous second-degree assault instruction discussed in part III(A) of this opinion, we consider the issue of the mutu | 1 | 1 |
People v. Pinedagreen1 sentence2003See People v. Pineda, 40 P.3d 60, 67 (Colo.App.2001). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Gladney
green
2 sentences2013Gladney, 194 Colo. at 71-72 , 570 P.2d at 233 . 2013Gladney, 194 Colo. at 71-72 , 570 P.2d at 233 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Harlan
green
1 sentence2004The court then ruled that, because this error was one of constitutional dimension, the error would require reversal unless the court was "convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." People v. Harlan, supra, 8 P.8d at 490 (quoting Davis, supra, 794 P.2d at 189 ). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
People v. Davis
green
2 sentences2004The court then ruled that, because this error was one of constitutional dimension, the error would require reversal unless the court was "convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." People v. Harlan, supra, 8 P.8d at 490 (quoting Davis, supra, 794 P.2d at 189 ). 2004The court then ruled that, because this error was one of constitutional dimension, the error would require reversal unless the court was "convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." People v. Harlan, supra, 8 P.8d at 490 (quoting Davis, supra, 794 P.2d at 189 ). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.