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.
§

People v. Butcher

180 Colo. 429 (Colo. 1973)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
People v. Butcher

5 Citing cases

  1. Chambers v. People

    682 P.2d 1173 (Colo. 1984)   Cited 33 times
    Finding no prejudice where the defendant failed to indicate how the belated production of a relevant scientific report prejudiced his case

    However, a trial court is under an obligation to instruct the jury properly, People v. Alvarez, 187 Colo. 290, 530 P.2d 506 (1975), and a failure to do so as to every element of a crime charged is plain error. People v. Butcher, 180 Colo. 429, 506 P.2d 362 (1973). Under the plain error standard, applicable here, we must review the defendant's assignment of error to determine whether his substantial rights were seriously affected.

  2. People v. Peterson

    656 P.2d 1301 (Colo. 1983)   Cited 24 times
    In People v. Peterson, 656 P.2d at 1305, our supreme court held that, where a defendant is charged with a substantive offense and with possession of a weapon by a previous offender, the court should consider all procedural safeguards, including an order for separate trials or a bifurcated procedure.

    This is not a case of an obvious instance of plain error, such as the failure to instruct the jury on one of the essential elements of the crime charged. People v. Butcher, 180 Colo. 429, 506 P.2d 362 (1973). In such a case, the failure to object to the inadequate instructions can serve no strategic purpose.

  3. People v. Archuleta

    554 P.2d 307 (Colo. 1976)   Cited 10 times
    Concluding that an "essential element of burglary is that at the time and place of entering the structure, the accused must have an intent to commit therein a crime"

    It is therefore necessary that the specific ulterior crime be clearly and accurately defined in order to determine if the defendant's intent was that proscribed by the burglary statute. People v. Archuleta, 180 Colo. 156, 503 P.2d 346; People v. Butcher, 180 Colo. 429, 506 P.2d 362. Where, as in Archuleta and Butcher, the ulterior crime was theft, and the theft instruction given by the court was prejudicially erroneous, we have held that the defendant's conviction for burglary must also be reversed. The question, therefore, is whether the sexual imposition instruction constituted prejudicial error requiring reversal of the burglary conviction.

  4. People v. Pool

    522 P.2d 102 (Colo. 1974)   Cited 9 times
    Holding that defendant committed forgery when, without authority, he altered a money order by filling in his own name as payee in the blank payee line, endorsed it, and then cashed it

    [5] The intent to permanently deprive another of the use and benefit of his property is a material element of the crime of theft. People v. Butcher, 180 Colo. 429, 506 P.2d 362 (1973). The defendant argues that the trial court erred in submitting Instruction No. 2 to the jury in that this instruction, which set forth the material allegations of the charge against the defendant, failed to inform the jury of this intent element.

  5. People v. Ingersoll

    181 Colo. 1 (Colo. 1973)   Cited 17 times
    In Ingersoll, we rejected the defendant's argument that an information alleging felony theft under C.R.S. 1963, section 40-5-2, was insufficient for failing to allege that the offense was committed with specific intent.

    The jury is apprised of the requirements as to the proof of the several elements of the offense charged through the court's instructions. See People v. Butcher, 180 Colo. 429, 506 P.2d 362. [6,7] Where, as here, the offense charged may be committed in alternative ways, the defendant may require the prosecution to state the particular manner in which he committed the offense by filing a motion for a bill of particulars.