5 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1963–2026 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
v. Daleygreen1 sentence2026See People v. Daley, 2021 COA 85, ¶ 141 (“The doctrine of cumulative error requires that numerous errors occurred, not merely that they were alleged.”). 9 V. | 1 | 1 |
Price v. Stategreen2 sentences1995See Price v. State, 149 Ga.App. 397 , 254 S.E.2d 512 (1979) (trial court erred by stating to the jury that if the court made an error, there were two appellate courts ahead of it in the state); State v. Nicholson, 689 S.W.2d 43 (Mo.1985) (trial court erred by referring to ease with which jury verdict could be overturned by appellate court). 1995See Price v. State, 149 Ga.App. 397 , 254 S.E.2d 512 (1979) (trial court erred by stating to the jury that if the court made an error, there were two appellate courts ahead of it in the state); State v. Nicholson, 689 S.W.2d 43 (Mo.1985) (trial court erred by referring to ease with which jury verdict could be overturned by appellate court). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Todd v. Bear Valley Village Apartments
green
1 sentence2007This was error under our ruling in Todd , which held that preclusion of evidence or witnesses is inappropriate where there is a substantial justification for a failure to comply with the disclosure deadlines or where the failure is harmless to the opposing party. 980 P.2d at 975 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
People v. Edebohls
green
1 sentence2002Mickens v. Taylor, supra; People v. Edebohls, supra; cf. Allen v. District Court, supra; People v. Mossmann, supra. Although the trial court had earlier determined the third attorney was providing effective assistance of counsel, the court made no inquiry regarding the third attorney’s asserted conflict of interest. *1157 The record also reflects that two days before the trial was to begin, the third attorney asked the court for permission not to appear with defendant on the day of trial. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
People v. Mossmann
green
1 sentence2002Mickens v. Taylor, supra; People v. Edebohls, supra; cf. Allen v. District Court, supra; People v. Mossmann, supra. Although the trial court had earlier determined the third attorney was providing effective assistance of counsel, the court made no inquiry regarding the third attorney’s asserted conflict of interest. *1157 The record also reflects that two days before the trial was to begin, the third attorney asked the court for permission not to appear with defendant on the day of trial. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Hernandez v. State
green
1 sentence1995Cf. Hernandez v. State, 507 S.W.2d 209 (Tex. App.1974) (trial court’s remark to defense counsel that, ‘You can try that on appeal,” made in presence of jury implied that defendant’s conviction was a foregone conclusion in the eyes of the court and constituted error). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
State v. Nicholson
neutral
1 sentence1995See Price v. State, 149 Ga.App. 397 , 254 S.E.2d 512 (1979) (trial court erred by stating to the jury that if the court made an error, there were two appellate courts ahead of it in the state); State v. Nicholson, 689 S.W.2d 43 (Mo.1985) (trial court erred by referring to ease with which jury verdict could be overturned by appellate court). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Vanderhoof v. People
green
2 sentences1963Although the Court did question the Defendants concerning their desire to have counsel, the Court did not inform them of their right to counsel or their right to have counsel appointed.” Referring to Rule 11 (a), Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Attorney General advises that: “We feel that the failure to precisely inform the Defendants of the possible penalty provided by statute for the offenses of rape, statutory rape, and kidnapping, was prejudicial error which affected the substantial rights of the Defendants.” The Attorney General properly cites in support of his *523 view the cas 1963Although the Court did question the Defendants concerning their desire to have counsel, the Court did not inform them of their right to counsel or their right to have counsel appointed.” Referring to Rule 11 (a), Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Attorney General advises that: “We feel that the failure to precisely inform the Defendants of the possible penalty provided by statute for the offenses of rape, statutory rape, and kidnapping, was prejudicial error which affected the substantial rights of the Defendants.” The Attorney General properly cites in support of his *523 view the cas | 1 | 1963–1963 |
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.