objected-to trial error in Colorado

2026Under this standard, “an objected-to trial error is harmless if there is no reasonable possibility that it contributed to the defendant’s conviction.” Id. 3 The People bear the burden of proving that “the error did not substantially influence the verdict or affect the fairness of the trial proceedings.” James v. People, 2018 CO 72, ¶ 19 , 426 P.3d 336, 341 . 2.

2026That means “an objected-to trial error is harmless if there is no reasonable 6 possibility that it contributed to the defendant’s conviction.” Pernell v. People, 2018 CO 13, ¶ 22 . 3.

2026Under this standard, “an objected-to trial error is harmless if there is no reasonable possibility that it contributed to the defendant’s conviction.” Id. 3 The People bear the burden of proving that “the error did not substantially influence the verdict or affect the fairness of the trial proceedings.” James v. People, 2018 CO 72, ¶ 19 , 426 P.3d 336, 341 . 2.

2026Under this standard, “an objected-to trial error is harmless if there is no reasonable possibility that it contributed to the defendant’s conviction.” Id. 3 The People bear the burden of proving that “the error did not substantially influence the verdict or affect the fairness of the trial proceedings.” James v. People, 2018 CO 72, ¶ 19 , 426 P.3d 336, 341 . 2.

2026Applicable Law ¶ 16 Under Rule 201(b), a trial court may take judicial notice of a fact that is “not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” As it relates to court files, a trial court can take judicial notice of adjudicative facts in its own court records if those facts merely establish “that various proceedings or actions have already taken place.” Doyle v. People, 2015 CO 10, ¶ 12 .

2018A reviewing court's "determination [of] whether a trial error has affected a substantial right of a defendant can only result from a case specific assessment of the likely impact of the error in question on the outcome of the litigation as a whole," People v. Rock , 2017 CO 84 , ¶ 22, 402 P.3d 472 , 479, and an objected-to trial error is harmless if there is no reasonable possibility that it contributed to the defendant's conviction, People v. Roman , 2017 CO 70 , ¶ 13, 398 P.3d 134 , 138 ; see also People v. Gaffney , 769 P.2d 1081 , 1088 (Colo. 1989) (an error may be deemed harmless "[i]f a

2018A reviewing court's "determination [of] whether a trial error has affected a substantial right of a defendant can only result from a case specific assessment of the likely impact of the error in question on the outcome of the litigation as a whole," People v. Rock , 2017 CO 84 , ¶ 22, 402 P.3d 472 , 479, and an objected-to trial error is harmless if there is no reasonable possibility that it contributed to the defendant's conviction, People v. Roman , 2017 CO 70 , ¶ 13, 398 P.3d 134 , 138 ; see also People v. Gaffney , 769 P.2d 1081 , 1088 (Colo. 1989) (an error may be deemed harmless "[i]f a

2018A reviewing court's "determination [of] whether a trial error has affected a substantial right of a defendant can only result from a case specific assessment of the likely impact of the error in question on the outcome of the litigation as a whole," People v. Rock , 2017 CO 84 , ¶ 22, 402 P.3d 472 , 479, and an objected-to trial error is harmless if there is no reasonable possibility that it contributed to the defendant's conviction, People v. Roman , 2017 CO 70 , ¶ 13, 398 P.3d 134 , 138 ; see also People v. Gaffney , 769 P.2d 1081 , 1088 (Colo. 1989) (an error may be deemed harmless "[i]f a

2018A reviewing court's "determination [of] whether a trial error has affected a substantial right of a defendant can only result from a case specific assessment of the likely impact of the error in question on the outcome of the litigation as a whole," People v. Rock , 2017 CO 84 , ¶ 22, 402 P.3d 472 , 479, and an objected-to trial error is harmless if there is no reasonable possibility that it contributed to the defendant's conviction, People v. Roman , 2017 CO 70 , ¶ 13, 398 P.3d 134 , 138 ; see also People v. Gaffney , 769 P.2d 1081 , 1088 (Colo. 1989) (an error may be deemed harmless "[i]f a

2017It is now established that the determination whether a trial error has affected a substantial right of a defendant can only result from a ease specific assessment of the likely impact of the error in question on the outcome of the litigation as a whole, People v. Novotny, 2014 CO 18, ¶¶ 14-27 , 320 P.3d 1194, 1199-1203 , and that an objected-to trial error cannot be classified as harmless if there is a reasonable probability that it contributed to the defendant’s conviction, Roman, ¶ 13; Crider v. People, 186 P.3d 39, 42-43 (Colo. 2008). ¶23 Although a determination whether there is .a reasona

2017It is now established that the determination whether a trial error has affected a substantial right of a defendant can only result from a ease specific assessment of the likely impact of the error in question on the outcome of the litigation as a whole, People v. Novotny, 2014 CO 18, ¶¶ 14-27 , 320 P.3d 1194, 1199-1203 , and that an objected-to trial error cannot be classified as harmless if there is a reasonable probability that it contributed to the defendant’s conviction, Roman, ¶ 13; Crider v. People, 186 P.3d 39, 42-43 (Colo. 2008). ¶23 Although a determination whether there is .a reasona