Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Hutton v. People

177 Colo. 448 (Colo. 1972)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Hutton v. People

4 Citing cases

  1. People v. Cooper

    950 P.2d 620 (Colo. App. 1998)   Cited 7 times
    Admitting evidence of incident which led to the issuance of restraining order occurring one week prior to charged incident

    See Colo. Sess. Laws 1971, ch. 121 at 427. The division in Barnhart followed the supreme court's decision in Hutton v. People, 177 Colo. 448, 494 P.2d 822 (1972). In Hutton, the court reversed the conviction of a defendant who stole a wallet from an office building.

  2. People v. Barnhart

    638 P.2d 814 (Colo. App. 1981)   Cited 8 times
    Holding that court must define in jury instructions specific crime thought committed to allow jury to decide whether defendant's intent at time of commission was intent prescribed by burglary statute

    In order to sustain a conviction for second degree burglary there must be evidence that the accused entered the building with intent to commit a crime. Section 18-4-203, C.R.S. 1973 (1978 Repl. Vol. 8); Hutton v. People, 177 Colo. 448, 494 P.2d 822 (1972). Moreover, voluntary intoxication may serve to establish an affirmative defense to specific intent crimes.

  3. People v. Germany

    643 P.2d 776 (Colo. App. 1980)   Cited 5 times

    See Gonzales v. People, 173 Colo. 243, 477 P.2d 363 (1970). The defendant's reliance on Hutton v. People, 177 Colo. 448, 494 P.2d 822 (1972), is misplaced. In Hutton, while there was evidence that the defendant committed theft, there was also evidence presented that he did not have the requisite intent when he entered the attorney's office.

  4. State v. Elliott

    88 N.M. 187 (N.M. Ct. App. 1975)   Cited 15 times
    Explaining that "[t]he gravamen of the offense of burglary is the intent with which the [residence] is entered" and that evidence of an intent formed after the entry does not prove a burglary

    236 N.E.2d at 571. See also, Easton v. State, 248 Ind. 338, 228 N.E.2d 6 (1967); Reed v. State, 7 Md. App. 200, 253 A.2d 774 (1969); State v. Rood, 11 Ariz. App. 102, 462 P.2d 399 (Ct.App. 1969); Hutton v. People, 177 Colo. 448, 494 P.2d 822 (1972). The convictions are reversed and defendant is discharged.