Cruz v. People

2 Citing cases

  1. Polster v. Griff's of America

    184 Colo. 418 (Colo. 1974)   Cited 23 times
    In Polster, the supreme court concluded that a trial court is not required, sua sponte, to give a limiting instruction regarding testimony to which no party has objected.

    These are the basic functions of trial counsel in our adversary system of justice and underlie the rationale of the contemporaneous objection rule which has so often been observed by our Court as a salutary requirement for the orderly administration of justice. Ross v. Colo. Natl. Bank, 170 Colo. 436, 463 P.2d 882; Cruz v. People, 166 Colo. 168, 442 P.2d 416; Lucero v.People, 158 Colo. 568, 409 P.2d 278; Scheer v. Cromwell, 158 Colo. 427, 407 P.2d 344. It is by the operation of this rule that the trial judge is alerted to evidentiary irregularities and enabled to control the trial proceedings, thereby avoiding obvious prejudicial error, reversals on appeal, and costly retrials.

  2. People v. Armstrong

    704 P.2d 877 (Colo. App. 1985)   Cited 9 times
    Allowing evidence surrounding defense witness' misdemeanor conviction which involved lying to protect the defendant

    Here, Thurman's statement implicated only himself in the Furr's robbery and did not mention or specifically implicate defendant. See Cruz v. People, 166 Colo. 168, 442 P.2d 416 (1968). Thus, defendant's substantial rights were not affected by the admission of this statement into evidence, and no reversible error occurred.