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 1994–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Cassels v. Peoplegreen2 sentences2020See Cassels, 92 P.3d at 956 (noting that failure to instruct a jury on the doctrine of no-retreat “creates a risk that the jury will not acquit the defendant because it will consider the defendant’s use of force unreasonable in light of the possibility of retreat”).6 and (2) the trial court should have sustained defense counsel’s objections to these statements. 2020Thus, we decline to do so. 6In Cassels, the jury wasn’t instructed on the doctrine of no-retreat, id. at 954 , while the jury here was. | 3 | 3 |
People v. Tolergreen2 sentences2011Colorado, like many jurisdictions, has adopted the doctrine of no-retreat, which "permits non-aggressors who are otherwise entitled to use physical force in self-defense to do so without first retreating, or seeking safety by means of escape." Cassels, 92 P.3d at 956 (citing Toler, 9 P.3d at 350-51 ). 2004People v. Toler, 9 P.3d 341, 350-51 (Colo.2000). | 1 | 2 |
Griego v. Peoplegreen1 sentence2018Further, following an “erroneous instruction precludes the jury from making a finding on the actual element of the offense.” Griego v. People, 19 P.3d 1, 8 (Colo. 2001) (quoting Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 10 (1999)).3 3 While Griego addressed an affirmatively incorrect jury instruction, the underlying rationale of the decision is nonetheless applicable in this context, particularly in light of the mandate in Anderson. | 1 | 1 |
Neder v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2018Further, following an “erroneous instruction precludes the jury from making a finding on the actual element of the offense.” Griego v. People, 19 P.3d 1, 8 (Colo. 2001) (quoting Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 10 (1999)).3 3 While Griego addressed an affirmatively incorrect jury instruction, the underlying rationale of the decision is nonetheless applicable in this context, particularly in light of the mandate in Anderson. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Garciagreen1 sentence2011See, eg., id. at 958 (facts raise the issue of retreat because they suggest the defendant could have run away or barricaded himself in the bedroom instead of using deadly force); Garcia, 28 P.3d at 348 (facts raise the issue of retreat where wife killed husband with an ax instead of running out of bedroom); Idrogo, 818 P.2d at 756 (facts raise the issue of retreat where they suggest that the defendant could have run away in stead of engaging in a fistfight with and ultimately stabbing the victim). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Reedgreen1 sentence2011See People v. Reed, 695 P.2d 806, 808 (Colo. App.1984) (issue of retreat not raised, and therefore trial court properly refused a no-retreat instruction, where wife shot at husband who was holding daughter by the neck against her will). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Leegreen1 sentence2009See People v. Lee, 30 P.3d 686, 689 (Colo.App.2000) (concluding the trial court did not commit plain error by failing to include sudden heat of passion in its jury instruction on second degree murder, because the defendant did not request an instruction or an interrogatory on that issue). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mata-Medina v. People
green
2 sentences2004After reviewing the record in the light most favorable to Cassels, Mata-Medina, 71 P.3d at 979 , we conclude that the facts of the case support an instruction on the doctrine of no-retreat; therefore, the trial court erred in refusing to give the instruction. 2004After reviewing the record in the light most favorable to Cassels, Mata-Medina, 71 P.3d at 979 , we conclude that the facts of the case support an instruction on the doctrine of no-retreat; therefore, the trial court erred in refusing to give the instruction. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Brown v. United States
green
2 sentences1994Idrogo, 818 P.2d at 756 ; Brown v. United States, 256 U.S. 335, 41 S.Ct. 501 , 65 L.Ed. 961 (1921); People v. Gonzales, 71 Cal. 569 , 12 P. 783 (1887); Runyan v. State, 7 Ind. 80 (1877); Haynes v. State, 451 So.2d 227 (Miss.1984); People v. Johnson, 75 Mich.App. 337 , 254 N.W.2d 667 (1977); Voight v. State, 53 Tex.Crim. 268 , 109 S.W. 205 (1908). 13 We held that Idrogo was entitled to an instruction explicitly explaining the doctrine of no-retreat, since the propounded instruction did not give the jury an opportunity to determine whether the defendant was the initial aggressor. 14 C. 1994Idrogo, 818 P.2d at 756 ; Brown v. United States, 256 U.S. 335, 41 S.Ct. 501 , 65 L.Ed. 961 (1921); People v. Gonzales, 71 Cal. 569 , 12 P. 783 (1887); Runyan v. State, 7 Ind. 80 (1877); Haynes v. State, 451 So.2d 227 (Miss.1984); People v. Johnson, 75 Mich.App. 337 , 254 N.W.2d 667 (1977); Voight v. State, 53 Tex.Crim. 268 , 109 S.W. 205 (1908). 13 We held that Idrogo was entitled to an instruction explicitly explaining the doctrine of no-retreat, since the propounded instruction did not give the jury an opportunity to determine whether the defendant was the initial aggressor. 14 C. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
People v. Joeseype Johnson
green
2 sentences1994Idrogo, 818 P.2d at 756 ; Brown v. United States, 256 U.S. 335, 41 S.Ct. 501 , 65 L.Ed. 961 (1921); People v. Gonzales, 71 Cal. 569 , 12 P. 783 (1887); Runyan v. State, 7 Ind. 80 (1877); Haynes v. State, 451 So.2d 227 (Miss.1984); People v. Johnson, 75 Mich.App. 337 , 254 N.W.2d 667 (1977); Voight v. State, 53 Tex.Crim. 268 , 109 S.W. 205 (1908). 13 We held that Idrogo was entitled to an instruction explicitly explaining the doctrine of no-retreat, since the propounded instruction did not give the jury an opportunity to determine whether the defendant was the initial aggressor. 14 C. 1994Idrogo, 818 P.2d at 756 ; Brown v. United States, 256 U.S. 335, 41 S.Ct. 501 , 65 L.Ed. 961 (1921); People v. Gonzales, 71 Cal. 569 , 12 P. 783 (1887); Runyan v. State, 7 Ind. 80 (1877); Haynes v. State, 451 So.2d 227 (Miss.1984); People v. Johnson, 75 Mich.App. 337 , 254 N.W.2d 667 (1977); Voight v. State, 53 Tex.Crim. 268 , 109 S.W. 205 (1908). 13 We held that Idrogo was entitled to an instruction explicitly explaining the doctrine of no-retreat, since the propounded instruction did not give the jury an opportunity to determine whether the defendant was the initial aggressor. 14 C. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Haynes v. State
green
2 sentences1994Idrogo, 818 P.2d at 756 ; Brown v. United States, 256 U.S. 335, 41 S.Ct. 501 , 65 L.Ed. 961 (1921); People v. Gonzales, 71 Cal. 569 , 12 P. 783 (1887); Runyan v. State, 7 Ind. 80 (1877); Haynes v. State, 451 So.2d 227 (Miss.1984); People v. Johnson, 75 Mich.App. 337 , 254 N.W.2d 667 (1977); Voight v. State, 53 Tex.Crim. 268 , 109 S.W. 205 (1908). 13 We held that Idrogo was entitled to an instruction explicitly explaining the doctrine of no-retreat, since the propounded instruction did not give the jury an opportunity to determine whether the defendant was the initial aggressor. 14 C. 1994Idrogo, 818 P.2d at 756 ; Brown v. United States, 256 U.S. 335 , 41 S.Ct. 501 , 65 L.Ed. 961 (1921); People v. Gonzales, 71 Cal. 569 , 12 P. 783 (1887); Runyan v. State, 7 Ind. 80 (1877); Haynes v. State, 451 So.2d 227 (Miss.1984); People v. Johnson, 75 Mich.App. 337 , 254 N.W.2d 667 (1977); Voight v. State, 53 Tex. Crim. 268 , 109 S.W. 205 (1908). [13] We held that Idrogo was entitled to an instruction explicitly explaining the doctrine of no-retreat, since the propounded instruction did not give the jury an opportunity to determine whether the defendant was the initial aggressor. [14] C. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Idrogo v. People
green
2 sentences1994Idrogo, 818 P.2d at 756 ; Brown v. United States, 256 U.S. 335, 41 S.Ct. 501 , 65 L.Ed. 961 (1921); People v. Gonzales, 71 Cal. 569 , 12 P. 783 (1887); Runyan v. State, 7 Ind. 80 (1877); Haynes v. State, 451 So.2d 227 (Miss.1984); People v. Johnson, 75 Mich.App. 337 , 254 N.W.2d 667 (1977); Voight v. State, 53 Tex.Crim. 268 , 109 S.W. 205 (1908). 13 We held that Idrogo was entitled to an instruction explicitly explaining the doctrine of no-retreat, since the propounded instruction did not give the jury an opportunity to determine whether the defendant was the initial aggressor. 14 C. 1994Idrogo, 818 P.2d at 756 ; Brown v. United States, 256 U.S. 335 , 41 S.Ct. 501 , 65 L.Ed. 961 (1921); People v. Gonzales, 71 Cal. 569 , 12 P. 783 (1887); Runyan v. State, 7 Ind. 80 (1877); Haynes v. State, 451 So.2d 227 (Miss.1984); People v. Johnson, 75 Mich.App. 337 , 254 N.W.2d 667 (1977); Voight v. State, 53 Tex. Crim. 268 , 109 S.W. 205 (1908). [13] We held that Idrogo was entitled to an instruction explicitly explaining the doctrine of no-retreat, since the propounded instruction did not give the jury an opportunity to determine whether the defendant was the initial aggressor. [14] C. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
People v. Gonzales
green
2 sentences1994Idrogo, 818 P.2d at 756 ; Brown v. United States, 256 U.S. 335, 41 S.Ct. 501 , 65 L.Ed. 961 (1921); People v. Gonzales, 71 Cal. 569 , 12 P. 783 (1887); Runyan v. State, 7 Ind. 80 (1877); Haynes v. State, 451 So.2d 227 (Miss.1984); People v. Johnson, 75 Mich.App. 337 , 254 N.W.2d 667 (1977); Voight v. State, 53 Tex.Crim. 268 , 109 S.W. 205 (1908). 13 We held that Idrogo was entitled to an instruction explicitly explaining the doctrine of no-retreat, since the propounded instruction did not give the jury an opportunity to determine whether the defendant was the initial aggressor. 14 C. 1994Idrogo, 818 P.2d at 756 ; Brown v. United States, 256 U.S. 335, 41 S.Ct. 501 , 65 L.Ed. 961 (1921); People v. Gonzales, 71 Cal. 569 , 12 P. 783 (1887); Runyan v. State, 7 Ind. 80 (1877); Haynes v. State, 451 So.2d 227 (Miss.1984); People v. Johnson, 75 Mich.App. 337 , 254 N.W.2d 667 (1977); Voight v. State, 53 Tex.Crim. 268 , 109 S.W. 205 (1908). 13 We held that Idrogo was entitled to an instruction explicitly explaining the doctrine of no-retreat, since the propounded instruction did not give the jury an opportunity to determine whether the defendant was the initial aggressor. 14 C. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Voight v. State
neutral
2 sentences1994Idrogo, 818 P.2d at 756 ; Brown v. United States, 256 U.S. 335, 41 S.Ct. 501 , 65 L.Ed. 961 (1921); People v. Gonzales, 71 Cal. 569 , 12 P. 783 (1887); Runyan v. State, 7 Ind. 80 (1877); Haynes v. State, 451 So.2d 227 (Miss.1984); People v. Johnson, 75 Mich.App. 337 , 254 N.W.2d 667 (1977); Voight v. State, 53 Tex.Crim. 268 , 109 S.W. 205 (1908). 13 We held that Idrogo was entitled to an instruction explicitly explaining the doctrine of no-retreat, since the propounded instruction did not give the jury an opportunity to determine whether the defendant was the initial aggressor. 14 C. 1994Idrogo, 818 P.2d at 756 ; Brown v. United States, 256 U.S. 335, 41 S.Ct. 501 , 65 L.Ed. 961 (1921); People v. Gonzales, 71 Cal. 569 , 12 P. 783 (1887); Runyan v. State, 7 Ind. 80 (1877); Haynes v. State, 451 So.2d 227 (Miss.1984); People v. Johnson, 75 Mich.App. 337 , 254 N.W.2d 667 (1977); Voight v. State, 53 Tex.Crim. 268 , 109 S.W. 205 (1908). 13 We held that Idrogo was entitled to an instruction explicitly explaining the doctrine of no-retreat, since the propounded instruction did not give the jury an opportunity to determine whether the defendant was the initial aggressor. 14 C. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
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.