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 1 courts 1992–2016 0 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. Millergreen2 sentences2016Specifically, counsel argued that due to Manyik’s mistaken belief that the victim was not invited, Manyik reasonably believed that the victim entered his house because the victim intended to hurt him or Adams. ¶78 The jury therefore was aware of Manyik’s mistake of fact defense, and even if there was error in the mistake of fact instruction, it was not substantial: it did not so prejudice Manyik "as to cast serious doubt on the reliability of the judgment of conviction." People v. Miller , 113 P.3d 743, 750 (Colo. 2005) (citation omitted). 2016Specifically, counsel argued that due to Manyik’s mistaken belief that the victim was not invited, Manyik reasonably believed that the victim entered his house because the victim intended to hurt him or Adams. ¶ 79 The jury therefore was aware of Ma-nyik’s mistake of fact defense, and even if there was error in the mistake of fact instruction, it was not substantial: it did not so prejudice Manyik “as to cast serious doubt on the reliability of the judgment of conviction.” People v. Miller, 113 P.3d 743, 750 (Colo.2005) (citation omitted). | 3 | 3 |
People v. Pickeringgreen1 sentence2014Applicable Law 148 An affirmative defense admits "the defendant's commission of the elements of the charged act, but seek[s] to justify, excuse, or mitigate the commission of the act." People v. Pickering, 276 P.3d 553, 555 (Colo.2011); accord People v. Huckleberry, 768 P.2d 1235, 1238-39 (Colo.1989). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Huckleberrygreen1 sentence2014Applicable Law 148 An affirmative defense admits "the defendant's commission of the elements of the charged act, but seek[s] to justify, excuse, or mitigate the commission of the act." People v. Pickering, 276 P.3d 553, 555 (Colo.2011); accord People v. Huckleberry, 768 P.2d 1235, 1238-39 (Colo.1989). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Beckett v. People
green
1 sentence2002The self-defense instruction given here is almost identical to that given and approved in Beckett v. People, 800 P.2d 74 (Colo.1990), and we find no error. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
People v. Aalbu
green
1 sentence1992People v. Aalbu, 696 P.2d 796 (Colo.1985). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.