People v. Shackelford, 511 P.2d 19 (Colo. 1973). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Shackelford, 511 P.2d 19 (Colo. 1973). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
108 citation events (23 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Foster (coloctapp, 2013-06-06)
Treatment trajectory · 1973 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1973 1999 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 31 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Foster
Colo. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
See Townsend v. People, 252 P.3d 1108 , 1112 n. 2 (Colo.2011) (concession of fact); People v. Wittrein, 221 P.3d 1076, 1082 (Colo.2009) (crossexamin-ing on particular topic, although the response was impermissible); People v. Shackelford, 182 Colo. 48, 50 , 511 P.2d 19, 20 (1973) (asking open-ended questions on eross-exam-ination).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People ex rel. S.N-V.
Colo. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
See, e.g., People v. Wittrein, 221 P.3d 1076, 1082 (Colo.2009) (defendant invited witness to give the testimony that he claimed on appeal was impermissible); People v. Zapata, 779 P.2d 1307, 1308-09 (Colo.1989) (defendant drafted and tendered jury instruction that he claimed on appeal was legally insufficient); People v. Shackelford, 182 Colo. 48, 49 , 511 P.2d 19, 20 (1973) (defendant elicited prejudicial evidence of separate crime from witness and then claimed on appeal that such evidence should not have been allowed).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Petitioner–Appellee, In the Interest of S.N–V., a Child, and Concerning B.A.N., Respondent–Appellant.
Colo. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
See, e.g., People v. Wittrein, 221 P.3d 1076, 1082 (Colo.2009) (defendant invited witness to give the testimony that he claimed on appeal was impermissible); People v. Zapata, 779 P.2d 1307 , 1308–09 (Colo.1989) (defendant drafted and tendered jury instruction that he claimed on appeal was legally insufficient); People v. Shackelford, 182 Colo. 48, 49 , 511 P.2d 19, 20 (1973) (defendant elicited prejudicial evidence of separate crime from witness and then claimed on appeal that such evidence should not have been allowed).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Petitioner–Appellee, In the Interest of S.N–V., a Child, and Concerning B.A.N., Respondent–Appellant.
Colo. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
See, e.g., People v. Wittrein, 221 P.3d 1076, 1082 (Colo.2009) (defendant invited witness to give the testimony that he claimed on appeal was impermissible); People v. Zapata, 779 P.2d 1307 , 1308–09 (Colo.1989) (defendant drafted and tendered jury instruction that he claimed on appeal was legally insufficient); People v. Shackelford, 182 Colo. 48, 49 , 511 P.2d 19, 20 (1973) (defendant elicited prejudicial evidence of separate crime from witness and then claimed on appeal that such evidence should not have been allowed).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Horton v. Suthers (2×)
Colo. · 2002 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Palmer v. Gleason, 154 Colo. 145 , 147-48 389 P.2d 90, 91 (1964) (invoking the doctrine against a defendant in a civil case); People v. Shackelford, 182 Colo. 48, 50 , 511 P.2d 19, 20 (1973) (invoking the doctrine against a defendant in a criminal case); Leister v. Wells, 300 Mo. 262 , 254 S.W. 75 (1923) (invoking the doctrine against a plaintiff in a civil case).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hansen v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
Colo. · 1998 · confidence medium
See People v. Zapata, 779 P.2d 1307, 1309 (Colo.l989)(declining to address merits of plain error argument raised by criminal defendant where defendant’s counsel prepared and tendered instruction about which defendant later complained); People v. Collins, 730 P.2d 293, 304 (Colo.l986)(deelining to address merits of plain error argument raised by criminal defendant where defendant objected to provocation instruction which he later claimed should have been given); People v. Shackelford, 182 Colo. 48, 50 , 511 P.2d 19, 20 (1973)(holding that defendant may not complain he is prejudiced by testimo…
cited Cited as authority (rule) People v. Rowerdink
Colo. · 1988 · confidence medium
People v. Peterson, 656 P.2d 1301, 1304 (Colo.1983); see People v. Mann, 646 P.2d 352, 358 (Colo.1982); People v. Shackleford, 182 Colo. 48, 50 , 511 P.2d 19, 20 (1973).
discussed Cited "see" Peo v. Frazier
Colo. Ct. App. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
See People v. Shackelford, 511 P.2d 19, 20 (Colo. 1973) (holding that it was invited error for defense counsel to ask open-ended questions on cross-examination that resulted in an undesirable response).
examined Cited "see" People v. Wittrein (4×)
Colo. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See People v. Shackelford, 182 Colo. 48, 50 , 511 P.2d 19, 20 (1973) (holding that it was invited error for defense counsel to ask open-ended questions on cross-examination that resulted in an undesirable response; thus an appellate court was precluded from considering whether the defendant was prejudiced by the testimony).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Braley (2×)
Colo. Ct. App. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See People v. Shackelford, 182 Colo. 48 , 511 P.2d 19 (1973).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Robinson (2×)
Colo. Ct. App. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See People v. Shackelford, 182 Colo. 48 , 511 P.2d 19 (1973).
examined Cited "see" People v. Trujillo (4×)
Colo. Ct. App. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See People v. Shackelford, 182 Colo. 48 , 511 P.2d 19 (1973).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Gordon (2×)
Colo. Ct. App. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See People v. Shackelford, 182 Colo. 48 , 511 P.2d 19 (1973) (party may not complain where he has been the instrument for injecting error in a case).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Harrison (2×)
Colo. Ct. App. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
See People v. Shackelford, 182 Colo. 48 , 511 P.2d 19 (1973); People v. Jones, 665 P.2d 127 (Colo. App.1982), aff'd, 681 P.2d 504 (Colo.1984).
discussed Cited "see" Jacobs v. Commonwealth Highland Theatres, Inc. (2×)
Colo. Ct. App. · 1986 · signal: see · confidence high
See People v. Shackelford, 182 Colo. 48 , 511 P.2d 19 (1973); Heimbecher v. City & County of Denver, 90 Colo. 346 , 9 P.2d 280 (1932).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Salter (2×)
Colo. Ct. App. · 1985 · signal: see · confidence high
See People v. Shackelford, 182 Colo. 48 , 511 P.2d 19 (1973).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Stiles (2×)
Colo. Ct. App. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See People v. Shackelford, 182 Colo. 48 , 511 P.2d 19 (1973).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Crespin (2×)
Colo. Ct. App. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See People v. Shackelford, 182 Colo. 48 , 511 P.2d 19 (1973).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Turner (2×)
Colo. Ct. App. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See People v. Shackelford, 182 Colo. 48 , 511 P.2d 19 (1973).
discussed Cited "see" People ex rel. B.R.M. (2×)
Colo. Ct. App. · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See People v. Shackelford, 182 Colo. 48 , 511 P.2d 19 (1973); Walker v. People, 175 Colo. 173 , 489 P.2d 584 (1971).
examined Cited "see" People v. Jackson (4×)
Colo. · 1981 · signal: see · confidence high
See People v. Shackelford, 182 Colo. 48 , 511 P.2d 19 (1973).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Anderson (2×)
Colo. Ct. App. · 1979 · signal: see · confidence high
See People v. Shackelford, 182 Colo. 48 , 511 P.2d 19 (1973).
discussed Cited "see" Everitt Lbr. Co., Inc. v. Industrial Com'n (2×)
Colo. Ct. App. · 1977 · signal: see · confidence high
See People v. Shackelford, 182 Colo. 48 , 511 P.2d 19 (1973); Palmer v. Gleason, 154 Colo. 145 , 389 P.2d 90 (1964). [2] We intimate no view as to whether such a clause, if included in a "consent form," would be valid. [3] Whether denial of unemployment compensation benefits due solely to a private employee's assertion of Fifth Amendment rights would be precluded on the basis that such action would amount to "state action," under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, by involving the state in requiring private employees to choose between surrendering their constitutional …
discussed Cited "see" People v. McKnight (2×)
Colo. Ct. App. · 1977 · signal: see · confidence high
See People v. Shackelford, 182 Colo. 48 , 511 P.2d 19 (1973).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Bucher (2×)
Colo. · 1973 · signal: see · confidence high
See People v. Shackelford, 182 Colo. 48 , 511 P.2d 19 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Peo v. Ramirez
Colo. Ct. App. · 2025 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See People v. Wittrein, 221 P.3d 1076, 1082 (Colo. 2009) (noting that error may be invited where an expert witness’s “responses were a foreseeable result of the form of questioning”); see also People v. Shackelford, 511 P.2d 19, 20 (Colo. 1973) (any error in admitting a witness’s testimony was invited by defense counsel’s “wide-open question” to the witness).2 ¶ 19 We disagree with Ramirez that this case is like Marx.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Peo v. Mattorano (2×)
Colo. Ct. App. · 2025 · signal: see also · confidence medium
People v. Wittrein, 221 P.3d 1076, 1082 (Colo. 2009); see also People v. Shackelford, 511 P.2d 19, 20 (Colo. 1973) (concluding that any error in admitting “unwanted testimony” was invited by defense counsel’s questioning).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Peo v. Goodall
Colo. Ct. App. · 2024 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See id.; see also People v. 7 Shackelford, 511 P.2d 19, 20 (Colo. 1973) (defense counsel invited any error by asking open-ended questions on cross-examination that resulted in an undesirable response); People v. Rogers, 2012 COA 192, ¶ 22 (“We conclude that in this case defense counsel intentionally opened the door to the Confrontation Clause violation by her strategic trial decision to introduce the non-testifying driver’s hearsay statement.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Chavez (2×)
Colo. Ct. App. · 2012 · signal: see also · confidence low
Id.; see also People v. Shackelford, 182 Colo. 48, 50 , 511 P.2d 19, 20 (1978).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Rubanowitz (2×)
Colo. · 1984 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., People v. Shackelford, 182 Colo. 48 , 511 P.2d 19 (1973).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Moody (2×)
Colo. · 1981 · signal: see also · confidence low
Standards for Criminal Justice, 15-3.1(c), commentary at 15.81 (2d Ed.1980); see also People v. Shackelford, 182 Colo. 48 , 511 P.2d 19 (1973).
The People of the State of Colorado
v.
Gilbert E. Shackelford
25212.
Supreme Court of Colorado.
Jun 11, 1973.
511 P.2d 19
Duke W. Dunbar, Attorney General, John P. Moore, Deputy, Aurel M. Kelly, Assistant, for plaintiff-appellee., Rollie R. Rogers, State Public Defender, J. D. MacFarlane, Chief Deputy, Burton Keith Watson, Deputy, Lee Belstock, Deputy, for defendant-appellant.
Erickson.
Cited by 52 opinions  |  Published

Opinion by

MR. JUSTICE ERICKSON.

The defendant, Gilbert E. Shackelford, was charged with robbing Patricia A. Moeller. 1967 Perm. Supp., C.R.S. 1963, 40-5-1. He was tried by a jury and convicted. On appeal, he seeks a new trial on the ground that he was not given a fair trial. He claims that he was prejudiced by the presentation of evidence relating to a crime which was separate and apart from the robbery with which he was charged.

The complaining witness, Patricia Moeller, was walking with an elderly woman when two girls struck her elderly companion, knocked her down, and stole her purse. Patricia Moeller sought and obtained assistance from the residents of a nearby apartment house. When she returned and endeavored to help her aged friend, the defendant allegedly snatched Patricia Moeller’s purse and fled. The two residents of the apartment house who responded to the request for help saw the second robbery and were able to apprehend the defendant. The injuries which were inflicted on the elderly woman caused her death.

In the course of the trial, defense counsel sought to have the court advise all witnesses that they should not answer any question in such a manner as to indicate that the elderly woman had died as a result of the injuries she suffered when her purse was snatched. The court declined to enter such an order but told the district attorney that he should avoid asking any questions which might lead to a mistrial.

Witnesses were sequestered by the trial judge at the request of defense counsel. Thereafter, defense counsel’s questions relating to the sequestration order and the events surrounding the criminal episode brought about the answers which defense counsel claims require reversal. In the course of cross-examination, defense counsel asked a wide-open[*50] question of a witness who saw the robbery occur. The witness responded by saying that Patricia Moeller told him that her companion died from the injuries she suffered when her purse was snatched. Defense counsel did not make a contemporaneous objection or move to strike the answer. Moreover, he did not seek protective orders from the court or move for a mistrial at the time the answer was given. The unwanted testimony would not have appeared before the jury if defense counsel had not pressed the witness for that last answer. It was defense counsel’s error in trial strategy which he now claims as a basis for reversal. In Palmer v. Gleason, 154 Colo. 145, 389 P.2d 90 (1964), we said:

“Decisions are myriad which hold that a party may not complain where he has been the instrument for injecting error in a case; he is expected to abide the consequences of his acts. 5 C.J.S. 857, § 1501.”

Fresquez v. People, 178 Colo. 220, 497 P.2d 1246 (1972); Neighbors v. People, 171 Colo. 349, 467 P.2d 804 (1970); Stilley & Scheer v. People, 160 Colo. 329, 417 P.2d 494 (1966).

Moreover, the facts of the case establish that the events which immediately preceded the robbery of Patricia Moeller were an inseparable part of the criminal episode and were admissible as part of the res gestae. Armijo v. People, 134 Colo. 344, 304 P.2d 633 (1956).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE PRINGLE, MR. JUSTICE GROVES, and MR. JUSTICE LEE concur.