People v. Noland

5 Citing cases

  1. People v. Marko

    434 P.3d 618 (Colo. App. 2015)   Cited 16 times   1 Legal Analyses

    A reviewing court faced with a sufficiency challenge must determine whether the evidence, when viewed as a whole and in a light most favorable to the prosecution, is both substantial and sufficient to support a conclusion by a reasonable person that the defendant is guilty of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. Dempsey, 117 P.3d at 807 ; People v. Noland, 739 P.2d 906, 907 (Colo. App. 1987). "In making this determination, the court must give the prosecution the benefit of every reasonable inference that might fairly be drawn from the evidence, and the resolution of inconsistent testimony and determination of the credibility of the witnesses are solely within the province of the jury."

  2. People v. Serra

    361 P.3d 1122 (Colo. App. 2015)   Cited 23 times
    Determining that insufficient evidence supported the defendant’s conviction for harassment when any conclusion that the division could draw about the defendant’s requisite intent would be "purely speculative"

    Dempsey v. People, 117 P.3d 800, 807 (Colo. 2005); People v. Noland, 739 P.2d 906, 907 (Colo. App. 1987). We review the record de novo to determine whether the evidence is sufficient both in quantity and quality to sustain the defendant’s conviction.

  3. People v. Mersman

    148 P.3d 199 (Colo. App. 2006)   Cited 19 times
    Interpreting Cox to mean that the jury may be instructed to "consider a driver's refusal to take a blood or breath test, along with other evidence, in determining his or her guilt of driving under the influence"

    The Due Process Clauses of the United States and Colorado Constitutions prohibit criminal conviction except on proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on each of the essential elements of a crime. People v. Noland, 739 P.2d 906 (Colo.App. 1987). Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that would lead a reasonable person to act without hesitation in matters of importance to himself or herself.

  4. People v. Duncan

    109 P.3d 1044 (Colo. App. 2005)   Cited 21 times
    Resolving inconsistent testimony is solely within the province of the finder of fact

    The Due Process Clauses of the United States and Colorado Constitutions require proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on each of the essential elements of a crime. People v. Noland, 739 P.2d 906 (Colo.App. 1987). A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence requires a reviewing court to determine whether the evidence, both direct and circumstantial, when viewed as a whole and in a light most favorable to the prosecution, is sufficient to support a conclusion by a reasonable fact finder that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt.

  5. People v. Chavez

    743 P.2d 53 (Colo. App. 1987)   Cited 2 times
    In People v. Chavez, 743 P.2d 53 (Colo.App. 1987), the Court of Appeals affirmed the finding of guilt and held that although the sentence could not be imposed pursuant to section 18-1-105(9)(a)(IV), the status of Chavez might permit sentencing in the aggravated range pursuant to section 18-1-105(9)(a)(V).

    See § 18-2-101(1), C.R.S. (1986 Repl. Vol. 8B). Cf. People v. Noland, 739 P.2d 906 (Colo.App. 1987). II