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.
5 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1977–2011 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hess v. Stategreen2 sentences2006See United States v. Wells, 347 F.3d 280 (8th Cir.2003) (evidence of defendant's prior narcotics transactions was admissible under Dowling , and trial court was not required to instruct the jury that defendant had been acquitted on prior charges stemming from the narcotics transactions); United States v. Smith, 145 F.3d 458 (1st Cir.1998)(Dowling does not require an acquittal instruction when evidence of acquitted conduct is introduced); United States v. Tirrell, 120 F.3d 670 (7th Cir.1997)(Dowling does not require that jury be told of acquittal; therefore, appellate court would afford substan 2006See United States v. Wells, 347 F.3d 280 (8th Cir.2003) (evidence of defendant’s prior narcotics transactions was admissible under Dowling , and trial court was not required to instruct the jury that defendant had been acquitted on prior charges stemming from the narcotics transactions); United States v. Smith, 145 F.3d 458 (1st Cir.1998)(Dowling does not require an acquittal instruction when evidence of acquitted conduct is introduced); United States v. Tirrell, 120 F.3d 670 (7th Cir.1997)(Dowling does not require that jury be told of acquittal; therefore, appellate court would afford substan | 1 | 2 |
Philmon v. Stategreen2 sentences2008These state courts have ruled that fairness requires that an acquittal instruction be given when the jury is likely to have learned that the defendant was charged criminally for the prior act, noting that Dowling "made a point of saying that the trial judge did tell the jury the defendant had been acquitted of the other offenses." See Bedoya, 259 Ill.Dec. 243 , 758 N.E.2d at 8381 ; see also Philmon, 593 S.W.2d at 507 (holding that it was a reversible error not to instruct the jury of the acquittal when the warrant issued in the prior act's case was mentioned by a witness). 2008These state courts have ruled that fairness requires that an acquittal instruction be given when the jury is likely to have learned that the defendant was charged criminally for the prior act, noting that Dowling "made a point of saying that the trial judge did tell the jury the defendant had been acquitted of the other offenses." See Bedoya, 259 Ill.Dec. 243 , 758 N.E.2d at 381 ; see also Philmon, 593 S.W.2d at 507 (holding that it was a reversible error not to instruct the jury of the acquittal when the warrant issued in the prior act's case was mentioned by a witness). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Bedoyagreen2 sentences2008These state courts have ruled that fairness requires that an acquittal instruction be given when the jury is likely to have learned that the defendant was charged criminally for the prior act, noting that Dowling "made a point of saying that the trial judge did tell the jury the defendant had been acquitted of the other offenses." See Bedoya, 259 Ill.Dec. 243 , 758 N.E.2d at 381 ; see also Philmon, 593 S.W.2d at 507 (holding that it was a reversible error not to instruct the jury of the acquittal when the warrant issued in the prior act's case was mentioned by a witness). 2008These state courts have ruled that fairness requires that an acquittal instruction be given when the jury is likely to have learned that the defendant was charged criminally for the prior act, noting that Dowling "made a point of saying that the trial judge did tell the jury the defendant had been acquitted of the other offenses." See Bedoya, 259 Ill.Dec. 243 , 758 N.E.2d at 381 ; see also Philmon, 593 S.W.2d at 507 (holding that it was a reversible error not to instruct the jury of the acquittal when the warrant issued in the prior act's case was mentioned by a witness). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Smithgreen2 sentences2008See, e.g., Hess v. State, 20 P.3d 1121 , 1122-30 *556 (Alaska 2001); State v. Davis, 127 Ariz. 285 , 619 P.2d 1062, 1063 (App.1980); Philmon v. State, 267 Ark. 1121 , 593 S.W.2d 504, 507 (App.1980); People v. Griffin, 66 Cal.2d 459 , 58 Cal.Rptr. 107 , 426 P.2d 507, 510-11 (1967); People v. Bedoya, 325 Ill.App.3d 926 , 259 Ill.Dec. 243 , 758 N.E.2d 366, 381 (2001); Hare v. State, 467 N.E.2d 7, 18 (Ind.1984); State v. Washington, 257 N.W.2d 890, 893 (Iowa 1977); Nolan v. State, 213 Md. 298 , 131 A.2d 851, 857-58 (1957); Walker v. State, 112 Nev. 819 , 921 P.2d 923, 927-28 (1996); State v. Smith 2008See, e.g., Hess v. State, 20 P.3d 1121 , 1122-30 *556 (Alaska 2001); State v. Davis, 127 Ariz. 285 , 619 P.2d 1062, 1063 (App.1980); Philmon v. State, 267 Ark. 1121 , 593 S.W.2d 504, 507 (App.1980); People v. Griffin, 66 Cal.2d 459 , 58 Cal.Rptr. 107 , 426 P.2d 507, 510-11 (1967); People v. Bedoya, 325 Ill.App.3d 926 , 259 Ill.Dec. 243 , 758 N.E.2d 366, 381 (2001); Hare v. State, 467 N.E.2d 7, 18 (Ind.1984); State v. Washington, 257 N.W.2d 890, 893 (Iowa 1977); Nolan v. State, 213 Md. 298 , 131 A.2d 851, 857-58 (1957); Walker v. State, 112 Nev. 819 , 921 P.2d 923, 927-28 (1996); State v. Smith | 1 | 1 |
State v. Davisgreen2 sentences2008See, e.g., Hess v. State, 20 P.3d 1121 , 1122-30 *556 (Alaska 2001); State v. Davis, 127 Ariz. 285 , 619 P.2d 1062, 1063 (App.1980); Philmon v. State, 267 Ark. 1121 , 593 S.W.2d 504, 507 (App.1980); People v. Griffin, 66 Cal.2d 459 , 58 Cal.Rptr. 107 , 426 P.2d 507, 510-11 (1967); People v. Bedoya, 325 Ill.App.3d 926 , 259 Ill.Dec. 243 , 758 N.E.2d 366, 381 (2001); Hare v. State, 467 N.E.2d 7, 18 (Ind.1984); State v. Washington, 257 N.W.2d 890, 893 (Iowa 1977); Nolan v. State, 213 Md. 298 , 131 A.2d 851, 857-58 (1957); Walker v. State, 112 Nev. 819 , 921 P.2d 923, 927-28 (1996); State v. Smith 2008See, e.g., Hess v. State, 20 P.3d 1121 , 1122-30 *556 (Alaska 2001); State v. Davis, 127 Ariz. 285 , 619 P.2d 1062, 1063 (App.1980); Philmon v. State, 267 Ark. 1121 , 593 S.W.2d 504, 507 (App.1980); People v. Griffin, 66 Cal.2d 459 , 58 Cal.Rptr. 107 , 426 P.2d 507, 510-11 (1967); People v. Bedoya, 325 Ill.App.3d 926 , 259 Ill.Dec. 243 , 758 N.E.2d 366, 381 (2001); Hare v. State, 467 N.E.2d 7, 18 (Ind.1984); State v. Washington, 257 N.W.2d 890, 893 (Iowa 1977); Nolan v. State, 213 Md. 298 , 131 A.2d 851, 857-58 (1957); Walker v. State, 112 Nev. 819 , 921 P.2d 923, 927-28 (1996); State v. Smith | 1 | 1 |
State v. Berniergreen2 sentences2008See, e.g., Hess v. State, 20 P.3d 1121, 1122-80 (Alaska 2001); State v. Davis, 127 Ariz. 285 , 619 P.2d 1062, 1063 (App.1980); Philmon v. State, 267 Ark. 1121 , 593 SW.2d 504, 507 (App.1980); People v. Griffin, 66 Cal.2d 459 , 58 Cal.Rptr. 107 , 426 P.2d 507, 510-11 (1967); People v. Bedoya, 325 Ill.App.3d 926 , 259 Ill.Dec. 243 , 758 N.E.2d 366, 381 (2001); Hare v. State, 467 N.E.2d 7, 18 (Ind.1984); State v. Washington, 257 NW.2d 890, 898 (Iowa 1977); Nolan v. State, 213 Md. 298 , 131 A.2d 851, 857-58 (1957); Walker v. State, 112 Nev. 819 , 921 P.2d 923, 927-28 (1996); State v. Smith, 271 Or 2008See, e.g., Hess v. State, 20 P.3d 1121 , 1122-30 *556 (Alaska 2001); State v. Davis, 127 Ariz. 285 , 619 P.2d 1062, 1063 (App.1980); Philmon v. State, 267 Ark. 1121 , 593 S.W.2d 504, 507 (App.1980); People v. Griffin, 66 Cal.2d 459 , 58 Cal.Rptr. 107 , 426 P.2d 507, 510-11 (1967); People v. Bedoya, 325 Ill.App.3d 926 , 259 Ill.Dec. 243 , 758 N.E.2d 366, 381 (2001); Hare v. State, 467 N.E.2d 7, 18 (Ind.1984); State v. Washington, 257 N.W.2d 890, 893 (Iowa 1977); Nolan v. State, 213 Md. 298 , 131 A.2d 851, 857-58 (1957); Walker v. State, 112 Nev. 819 , 921 P.2d 923, 927-28 (1996); State v. Smith | 1 | 1 |
State v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2008See, e.g., Hess v. State, 20 P.3d 1121, 1122-80 (Alaska 2001); State v. Davis, 127 Ariz. 285 , 619 P.2d 1062, 1063 (App.1980); Philmon v. State, 267 Ark. 1121 , 593 SW.2d 504, 507 (App.1980); People v. Griffin, 66 Cal.2d 459 , 58 Cal.Rptr. 107 , 426 P.2d 507, 510-11 (1967); People v. Bedoya, 325 Ill.App.3d 926 , 259 Ill.Dec. 243 , 758 N.E.2d 366, 381 (2001); Hare v. State, 467 N.E.2d 7, 18 (Ind.1984); State v. Washington, 257 NW.2d 890, 898 (Iowa 1977); Nolan v. State, 213 Md. 298 , 131 A.2d 851, 857-58 (1957); Walker v. State, 112 Nev. 819 , 921 P.2d 923, 927-28 (1996); State v. Smith, 271 Or 2008See, e.g., Hess v. State, 20 P.3d 1121 , 1122-30 *556 (Alaska 2001); State v. Davis, 127 Ariz. 285 , 619 P.2d 1062, 1063 (App.1980); Philmon v. State, 267 Ark. 1121 , 593 S.W.2d 504, 507 (App.1980); People v. Griffin, 66 Cal.2d 459 , 58 Cal.Rptr. 107 , 426 P.2d 507, 510-11 (1967); People v. Bedoya, 325 Ill.App.3d 926 , 259 Ill.Dec. 243 , 758 N.E.2d 366, 381 (2001); Hare v. State, 467 N.E.2d 7, 18 (Ind.1984); State v. Washington, 257 N.W.2d 890, 893 (Iowa 1977); Nolan v. State, 213 Md. 298 , 131 A.2d 851, 857-58 (1957); Walker v. State, 112 Nev. 819 , 921 P.2d 923, 927-28 (1996); State v. Smith | 1 | 1 |
People v. Boldengreen2 sentences2008But see State v. Anonymous (1978-4), 34 Conn.Supp. 689 , 389 A.2d 1270 , 1274 (1978) (holding there was no error when the trial court declined to give an acquittal instruction); People v. Bolden, 98 Mich.App. 452 , 296 N.W.2d 613, 617 (1980) (same); State v. Schlue, 129 N.J.Super. 351 , 323 A.2d 549, 552 (App.Div.1972) (same). 2008But see State v. Anonymous (1978-4), 34 Conn.Supp. 689 , 389 A.2d 1270 , 1274 (1978) (holding there was no error when the trial court declined to give an acquittal instruction); People v. Bolden, 98 Mich.App. 452 , 296 N.W.2d 613, 617 (1980) (same); State v. Schlue, 129 N.J.Super. 351 , 323 A.2d 549, 552 (App.Div.1972) (same). | 1 | 1 |
Hare v. Stategreen2 sentences2008See, e.g., Hess v. State, 20 P.3d 1121, 1122-80 (Alaska 2001); State v. Davis, 127 Ariz. 285 , 619 P.2d 1062, 1063 (App.1980); Philmon v. State, 267 Ark. 1121 , 593 SW.2d 504, 507 (App.1980); People v. Griffin, 66 Cal.2d 459 , 58 Cal.Rptr. 107 , 426 P.2d 507, 510-11 (1967); People v. Bedoya, 325 Ill.App.3d 926 , 259 Ill.Dec. 243 , 758 N.E.2d 366, 381 (2001); Hare v. State, 467 N.E.2d 7, 18 (Ind.1984); State v. Washington, 257 NW.2d 890, 898 (Iowa 1977); Nolan v. State, 213 Md. 298 , 131 A.2d 851, 857-58 (1957); Walker v. State, 112 Nev. 819 , 921 P.2d 923, 927-28 (1996); State v. Smith, 271 Or 2008See, e.g., Hess v. State, 20 P.3d 1121 , 1122-30 *556 (Alaska 2001); State v. Davis, 127 Ariz. 285 , 619 P.2d 1062, 1063 (App.1980); Philmon v. State, 267 Ark. 1121 , 593 S.W.2d 504, 507 (App.1980); People v. Griffin, 66 Cal.2d 459 , 58 Cal.Rptr. 107 , 426 P.2d 507, 510-11 (1967); People v. Bedoya, 325 Ill.App.3d 926 , 259 Ill.Dec. 243 , 758 N.E.2d 366, 381 (2001); Hare v. State, 467 N.E.2d 7, 18 (Ind.1984); State v. Washington, 257 N.W.2d 890, 893 (Iowa 1977); Nolan v. State, 213 Md. 298 , 131 A.2d 851, 857-58 (1957); Walker v. State, 112 Nev. 819 , 921 P.2d 923, 927-28 (1996); State v. Smith | 1 | 1 |
Nolan v. Stategreen2 sentences2008See, e.g., Hess v. State, 20 P.3d 1121 , 1122-30 *556 (Alaska 2001); State v. Davis, 127 Ariz. 285 , 619 P.2d 1062, 1063 (App.1980); Philmon v. State, 267 Ark. 1121 , 593 S.W.2d 504, 507 (App.1980); People v. Griffin, 66 Cal.2d 459 , 58 Cal.Rptr. 107 , 426 P.2d 507, 510-11 (1967); People v. Bedoya, 325 Ill.App.3d 926 , 259 Ill.Dec. 243 , 758 N.E.2d 366, 381 (2001); Hare v. State, 467 N.E.2d 7, 18 (Ind.1984); State v. Washington, 257 N.W.2d 890, 893 (Iowa 1977); Nolan v. State, 213 Md. 298 , 131 A.2d 851, 857-58 (1957); Walker v. State, 112 Nev. 819 , 921 P.2d 923, 927-28 (1996); State v. Smith 2008See, e.g., Hess v. State, 20 P.3d 1121 , 1122-30 *556 (Alaska 2001); State v. Davis, 127 Ariz. 285 , 619 P.2d 1062, 1063 (App.1980); Philmon v. State, 267 Ark. 1121 , 593 S.W.2d 504, 507 (App.1980); People v. Griffin, 66 Cal.2d 459 , 58 Cal.Rptr. 107 , 426 P.2d 507, 510-11 (1967); People v. Bedoya, 325 Ill.App.3d 926 , 259 Ill.Dec. 243 , 758 N.E.2d 366, 381 (2001); Hare v. State, 467 N.E.2d 7, 18 (Ind.1984); State v. Washington, 257 N.W.2d 890, 893 (Iowa 1977); Nolan v. State, 213 Md. 298 , 131 A.2d 851, 857-58 (1957); Walker v. State, 112 Nev. 819 , 921 P.2d 923, 927-28 (1996); State v. Smith | 1 | 1 |
People v. Griffingreen2 sentences2008See, e.g., Hess v. State, 20 P.3d 1121 , 1122-30 *556 (Alaska 2001); State v. Davis, 127 Ariz. 285 , 619 P.2d 1062, 1063 (App.1980); Philmon v. State, 267 Ark. 1121 , 593 S.W.2d 504, 507 (App.1980); People v. Griffin, 66 Cal.2d 459 , 58 Cal.Rptr. 107 , 426 P.2d 507, 510-11 (1967); People v. Bedoya, 325 Ill.App.3d 926 , 259 Ill.Dec. 243 , 758 N.E.2d 366, 381 (2001); Hare v. State, 467 N.E.2d 7, 18 (Ind.1984); State v. Washington, 257 N.W.2d 890, 893 (Iowa 1977); Nolan v. State, 213 Md. 298 , 131 A.2d 851, 857-58 (1957); Walker v. State, 112 Nev. 819 , 921 P.2d 923, 927-28 (1996); State v. Smith 2008See, e.g., Hess v. State, 20 P.3d 1121 , 1122-30 *556 (Alaska 2001); State v. Davis, 127 Ariz. 285 , 619 P.2d 1062, 1063 (App.1980); Philmon v. State, 267 Ark. 1121 , 593 S.W.2d 504, 507 (App.1980); People v. Griffin, 66 Cal.2d 459 , 58 Cal.Rptr. 107 , 426 P.2d 507, 510-11 (1967); People v. Bedoya, 325 Ill.App.3d 926 , 259 Ill.Dec. 243 , 758 N.E.2d 366, 381 (2001); Hare v. State, 467 N.E.2d 7, 18 (Ind.1984); State v. Washington, 257 N.W.2d 890, 893 (Iowa 1977); Nolan v. State, 213 Md. 298 , 131 A.2d 851, 857-58 (1957); Walker v. State, 112 Nev. 819 , 921 P.2d 923, 927-28 (1996); State v. Smith | 1 | 1 |
State v. Schluegreen2 sentences2008But see State v. Anonymous (1978-4), 34 Conn.Supp. 689 , 389 A.2d 1270 , 1274 (1978) (holding there was no error when the trial court declined to give an acquittal instruction); People v. Bolden, 98 Mich.App. 452 , 296 N.W.2d 613, 617 (1980) (same); State v. Schlue, 129 N.J.Super. 351 , 323 A.2d 549, 552 (App.Div.1972) (same). 2008But see State v. Anonymous (1978-4), 34 Conn.Supp. 689 , 389 A.2d 1270 , 1274 (1978) (holding there was no error when the trial court declined to give an acquittal instruction); People v. Bolden, 98 Mich.App. 452 , 296 N.W.2d 613, 617 (1980) (same); State v. Schlue, 129 N.J.Super. 351 , 323 A.2d 549, 552 (App.Div.1972) (same). | 1 | 1 |
Walker v. Stategreen2 sentences2008See, e.g., Hess v. State, 20 P.3d 1121 , 1122-30 *556 (Alaska 2001); State v. Davis, 127 Ariz. 285 , 619 P.2d 1062, 1063 (App.1980); Philmon v. State, 267 Ark. 1121 , 593 S.W.2d 504, 507 (App.1980); People v. Griffin, 66 Cal.2d 459 , 58 Cal.Rptr. 107 , 426 P.2d 507, 510-11 (1967); People v. Bedoya, 325 Ill.App.3d 926 , 259 Ill.Dec. 243 , 758 N.E.2d 366, 381 (2001); Hare v. State, 467 N.E.2d 7, 18 (Ind.1984); State v. Washington, 257 N.W.2d 890, 893 (Iowa 1977); Nolan v. State, 213 Md. 298 , 131 A.2d 851, 857-58 (1957); Walker v. State, 112 Nev. 819 , 921 P.2d 923, 927-28 (1996); State v. Smith 2008See, e.g., Hess v. State, 20 P.3d 1121 , 1122-30 *556 (Alaska 2001); State v. Davis, 127 Ariz. 285 , 619 P.2d 1062, 1063 (App.1980); Philmon v. State, 267 Ark. 1121 , 593 S.W.2d 504, 507 (App.1980); People v. Griffin, 66 Cal.2d 459 , 58 Cal.Rptr. 107 , 426 P.2d 507, 510-11 (1967); People v. Bedoya, 325 Ill.App.3d 926 , 259 Ill.Dec. 243 , 758 N.E.2d 366, 381 (2001); Hare v. State, 467 N.E.2d 7, 18 (Ind.1984); State v. Washington, 257 N.W.2d 890, 893 (Iowa 1977); Nolan v. State, 213 Md. 298 , 131 A.2d 851, 857-58 (1957); Walker v. State, 112 Nev. 819 , 921 P.2d 923, 927-28 (1996); State v. Smith | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Damien Wellsgreen2 sentences2006See United States v. Wells, 347 F.3d 280 (8th Cir.2003) (evidence of defendant's prior narcotics transactions was admissible under Dowling , and trial court was not required to instruct the jury that defendant had been acquitted on prior charges stemming from the narcotics transactions); United States v. Smith, 145 F.3d 458 (1st Cir.1998)(Dowling does not require an acquittal instruction when evidence of acquitted conduct is introduced); United States v. Tirrell, 120 F.3d 670 (7th Cir.1997)(Dowling does not require that jury be told of acquittal; therefore, appellate court would afford substan 2006See United States v. Wells, 347 F.3d 280 (8th Cir.2003) (evidence of defendant’s prior narcotics transactions was admissible under Dowling , and trial court was not required to instruct the jury that defendant had been acquitted on prior charges stemming from the narcotics transactions); United States v. Smith, 145 F.3d 458 (1st Cir.1998)(Dowling does not require an acquittal instruction when evidence of acquitted conduct is introduced); United States v. Tirrell, 120 F.3d 670 (7th Cir.1997)(Dowling does not require that jury be told of acquittal; therefore, appellate court would afford substan | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Hess v. Stategreen2 sentences2006See United States v. Wells, 347 F.3d 280 (8th Cir.2003) (evidence of defendant's prior narcotics transactions was admissible under Dowling , and trial court was not required to instruct the jury that defendant had been acquitted on prior charges stemming from the narcotics transactions); United States v. Smith, 145 F.3d 458 (1st Cir.1998)(Dowling does not require an acquittal instruction when evidence of acquitted conduct is introduced); United States v. Tirrell, 120 F.3d 670 (7th Cir.1997)(Dowling does not require that jury be told of acquittal; therefore, appellate court would afford substan 2006See United States v. Wells, 347 F.3d 280 (8th Cir.2003) (evidence of defendant’s prior narcotics transactions was admissible under Dowling , and trial court was not required to instruct the jury that defendant had been acquitted on prior charges stemming from the narcotics transactions); United States v. Smith, 145 F.3d 458 (1st Cir.1998)(Dowling does not require an acquittal instruction when evidence of acquitted conduct is introduced); United States v. Tirrell, 120 F.3d 670 (7th Cir.1997)(Dowling does not require that jury be told of acquittal; therefore, appellate court would afford substan | 1 | 2 |
State v. Anonymousgreen2 sentences2008But see State v. Anonymous (1978-4), 34 Conn.Supp. 689 , 389 A.2d 1270 , 1274 (1978) (holding there was no error when the trial court declined to give an acquittal instruction); People v. Bolden, 98 Mich.App. 452 , 296 N.W.2d 613, 617 (1980) (same); State v. Schlue, 129 N.J.Super. 351 , 323 A.2d 549, 552 (App.Div.1972) (same). 2008But see State v. Anonymous (1978-4), 34 Conn.Supp. 689 , 389 A.2d 1270 , 1274 (1978) (holding there was no error when the trial court declined to give an acquittal instruction); People v. Bolden, 98 Mich.App. 452 , 296 N.W.2d 613, 617 (1980) (same); State v. Schlue, 129 N.J.Super. 351 , 323 A.2d 549, 552 (App.Div.1972) (same). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Bennett
green
2 sentences1981Measuring the total quantum of evidence which was presented to the jury, we conclude that the motion for a judgment of acquittal was properly denied because there was substantial evidence to support a conviction when measured by the test forth in People v. Bennett, 183 Colo. 125 , 515 P.2d 466 (1973): “The issue before the trial judge is whether the relevant evidence, both direct and circumstantial, when viewed as a whole and in the light most favorable to the prosecution, is substantial and sufficient to support a conclusion by a reasonable mind that the defendant is guilty of the charge beyo 1981Measuring the total quantum of evidence which was presented to the jury, we conclude that the motion for a judgment of acquittal was properly denied because there was substantial evidence to support a conviction when measured by the test forth in People v. Bennett, 183 Colo. 125 , 515 P.2d 466 (1973): “The issue before the trial judge is whether the relevant evidence, both direct and circumstantial, when viewed as a whole and in the light most favorable to the prosecution, is substantial and sufficient to support a conclusion by a reasonable mind that the defendant is guilty of the charge beyo | 2 | 1977–1981 |
Kinney v. People
green
1 sentence2011“An acquittal instruction is appropriate when the testimony or evidence presented at trial about the prior act indicates that the jury has likely learned or concluded that the defendant was tried for the prior act and may be speculating as to the defendant’s guilt or innocence in that prior trial.” Id. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
United States v. Smith
green
2 sentences2006See United States v. Wells, 347 F.3d 280 (8th Cir.2003) (evidence of defendant's prior narcotics transactions was admissible under Dowling , and trial court was not required to instruct the jury that defendant had been acquitted on prior charges stemming from the narcotics transactions); United States v. Smith, 145 F.3d 458 (1st Cir.1998)(Dowling does not require an acquittal instruction when evidence of acquitted conduct is introduced); United States v. Tirrell, 120 F.3d 670 (7th Cir.1997)(Dowling does not require that jury be told of acquittal; therefore, appellate court would afford substan 2006See United States v. Wells, 347 F.3d 280 (8th Cir.2003) (evidence of defendant’s prior narcotics transactions was admissible under Dowling , and trial court was not required to instruct the jury that defendant had been acquitted on prior charges stemming from the narcotics transactions); United States v. Smith, 145 F.3d 458 (1st Cir.1998)(Dowling does not require an acquittal instruction when evidence of acquitted conduct is introduced); United States v. Tirrell, 120 F.3d 670 (7th Cir.1997)(Dowling does not require that jury be told of acquittal; therefore, appellate court would afford substan | 1 | 2006–2006 |
United States v. Theodore A. Tirrell, Cross-Appellee
green
2 sentences2006See United States v. Wells, 347 F.3d 280 (8th Cir.2003) (evidence of defendant's prior narcotics transactions was admissible under Dowling , and trial court was not required to instruct the jury that defendant had been acquitted on prior charges stemming from the narcotics transactions); United States v. Smith, 145 F.3d 458 (1st Cir.1998)(Dowling does not require an acquittal instruction when evidence of acquitted conduct is introduced); United States v. Tirrell, 120 F.3d 670 (7th Cir.1997)(Dowling does not require that jury be told of acquittal; therefore, appellate court would afford substan 2006See United States v. Wells, 347 F.3d 280 (8th Cir.2003) (evidence of defendant’s prior narcotics transactions was admissible under Dowling , and trial court was not required to instruct the jury that defendant had been acquitted on prior charges stemming from the narcotics transactions); United States v. Smith, 145 F.3d 458 (1st Cir.1998)(Dowling does not require an acquittal instruction when evidence of acquitted conduct is introduced); United States v. Tirrell, 120 F.3d 670 (7th Cir.1997)(Dowling does not require that jury be told of acquittal; therefore, appellate court would afford substan | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Bell
green
2 sentences2006See United States v. Wells, 347 F.3d 280 (8th Cir.2003) (evidence of defendant's prior narcotics transactions was admissible under Dowling , and trial court was not required to instruct the jury that defendant had been acquitted on prior charges stemming from the narcotics transactions); United States v. Smith, 145 F.3d 458 (1st Cir.1998)(Dowling does not require an acquittal instruction when evidence of acquitted conduct is introduced); United States v. Tirrell, 120 F.3d 670 (7th Cir.1997)(Dowling does not require that jury be told of acquittal; therefore, appellate court would afford substan 2006See United States v. Wells, 347 F.3d 280 (8th Cir.2003) (evidence of defendant's prior narcotics transactions was admissible under Dowling , and trial court was not required to instruct the jury that defendant had been acquitted on prior charges stemming from the narcotics transactions); United States v. Smith, 145 F.3d 458 (1st Cir.1998)(Dowling does not require an acquittal instruction when evidence of acquitted conduct is introduced); United States v. Tirrell, 120 F.3d 670 (7th Cir.1997)(Dowling does not require that jury be told of acquittal; therefore, appellate court would afford substan | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.