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 1959–1995 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Steensengreen2 sentences1988Id. at 236-37 , 343 P.2d at 1060 (citing State v. Steensen, 35 N.J.Super. 103 , 113 A.2d 203 (1955)). 1988Id. at 236-37 , 343 P.2d at 1060 (citing State v. Steensen, 35 N.J.Super. 103 , 113 A.2d 203 (1955)). | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Stull v. People
red
2 sentences1991Although the Colorado Rules of Evidence do not address whether, as we previously held in Stull , 140 Colo, at 284, 344 P.2d at 458 , the limited-purpose instruction should be repeated in the court’s written instructions to the jury, we conclude that, in order to safeguard against the potential for the jury’s misuse of the other-crime evidence, the trial court should repeat the limited-purpose instruction in its general charge to the jury at the conclusion of the evidence. 1979Relying upon Stull v. People, 140 Colo. 278 , 344 P.2d 455 (1959), defendant also asserts that the trial court erred in not giving a limited purpose instruction for similar offenses in connection with the guard's testimony that marijuana was found on defendant upon his being transferred to Maximum Security following the discovery of the marijuana in his possession in Medium Security. | 2 | 1979–1991 |
People v. Garner
green
1 sentence1995Id. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
People v. Yoshio Futamata
green
2 sentences1988Id. at 236-37 , 343 P.2d at 1060 (citing State v. Steensen, 35 N.J.Super. 103 , 113 A.2d 203 (1955)). 1988Id. at 236-37 , 343 P.2d at 1060 (citing State v. Steensen, 35 N.J.Super. 103 , 113 A.2d 203 (1955)). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.