When on the trial of any indictment,
information, felony complaint, or complaint for any offense there appears to be any variance
between the statements in the indictment, complaint, or information and the evidence offered in
proof thereof, of any given name or surname, or both given name and surname, or other
description whatever of any person who is therein named or described, or in the name or
description of any matter or thing whatsoever therein named or described, such variance is not
grounds for the acquittal of the defendant, unless the court before which such trial be had finds
such variance is material to the merits of the case or may be prejudicial to the defendant. No
indictment, information, felony complaint, or complaint shall be deemed insufficient nor shall
the trial, judgment, or other proceedings thereon be reversed or affected by any defect which
does not tend to prejudice the substantial rights of the defendant on the merits.
Source: L. 72: R&RE, p. 239, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 39-10-202. L. 73: p. 499, § 4.
PART 3
EVIDENCE OF SIMILAR TRANSACTIONS
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
8
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1984–2026 · leading case:
v. People, 2020 CO 49, 464 P.3d 759.
v. People, 2020 CO 49, 464 P.3d 759.
· cites it 4× “¶46 Campbell argues that the prosecution’s failure to prove the specific prior felony conviction listed in the information resulted in a constructive amendment of the habitual criminal count, requiring reversal.”
People v. Rodriguez, 914 P.2d 230 (Colo. 1996).
· cites it 4× “§ 16-10-202, 8 C.R.S. (1978). Rodriguez contends that Instruction No.”
v. Carter, 2021 COA 29, 486 P.3d 473.
· cites it 2× “Weeks, 2015 COA 77, ¶ 53 (applying plain error review to a constructive amendment, citing Weinreich); § 16-10-202, C.R.S. 2020 (a variance from a charging document is not grounds for acquittal unless it “is material to the merits of the case or may be prejudicial to the…”
People v. Pahl, 169 P.3d 169 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 3× “Section 16-10-202, C.R.S.2005;, People v.”
People v. Moody, 674 P.2d 366 (Colo. 1984).
· cites it 6× “Moreover, section 16-10-202, C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl.”
Peo v. Rader, No. 23CA1394 (Colo. Ct. App. Apr. 2, 2026).
· cites it 2× “(quoting § 16-10-202, C.R.S. 2025)). ¶ 66 In Campbell, the information alleged that the defendant had been convicted of a felony in Denver District Court Case No.”
Peo v. Zellars, No. 24CA0227 (Colo. Ct. App. Apr. 23, 2026).
· cites it 2× “” (quoting § 16-10-202, C.R.S. 2025)). ¶ 22 We review de novo whether a variance occurred.”
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.