Colo. Rev. Stat. » Title 13
Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-71-140 (2026)

Irregularity in selecting, summoning, and managing jurors

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The court shall not declare a mistrial or set aside a verdict based upon allegations of any irregularity in selecting, summoning, and managing jurors, or in limiting the length of any term of juror service, or based upon any other defect in any procedure performed under this article unless the moving party objects to such irregularity or defect as soon as possible after its discovery and demonstrates specific injury or prejudice.

Source: L. 89: Entire article R&RE, p. 773, § 1, effective January 1, 1990.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 2003–2020 · leading case: People v. Novotny, 320 P.3d 1194 (Colo. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Novotny, 320 P.3d 1194 (Colo. 2014). · cites it 2× “3d at 1126 ; but see § 13-71-140, C.R.S. (2018) ("The court shall not declare a mistrial or set aside a verdict based upon allegations of any irregularity in selecting, summoning, and managing jurors, .”
on v. People, 2020 CO 46 (Colo. 2020). “” See also § 13-71-140, C.R.S. (2019) (“The court shall not declare a mistrial or set aside a verdict based upon allegations of any irregularity in selecting, summoning, and managing jurors .”
Rail v. People, 2019 CO 99 (Colo. 2019). · cites it 5× “2007), and drawing guidance from section 13-71-140, C.R.S. (2019) (providing that the court “shall not declare a mistrial or set aside a verdict based upon allegations of any irregularity in selecting, summoning, and managing jurors,” unless the aggrieved party “objects to such…”
People v. Rail, 2016 COA 24 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 4× “§ 13-71-140, C.R.S. 2015 (emphasis added).”
In re the 2000-2001 Dist. Grand Jury in & for the First Jud. Dist., 77 P.3d 779 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “Relying on § 13-71-140, C.R.S.2002, the trial court concluded that Black Hawk had failed to establish injury or prejudice as required by statute.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.