Legal Opinion

People v. Rhorer

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided October 19, 1998No. 97SC320PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Mullarkey

We granted certiorari in People v. Rhorer, 946 P.2d 503 (Colo.App.1997), to determine whether violation of a “no-eontact” court order (no-contact order) issued by the Denver County Court pursuant to a municipal ordinance can serve as a predicate act, i.e., constitutes a “crime,” for purposes of the second degree burglary statute, section 18-4-203, 6 C.R.S. (1998). 1 In contrast to the trial court, the court of appeals held that an intent to violate a no-contact order does not qualify as an “intent to commit therein a crime against a person or property.” § 18-4-203, 6 C.R.S. (1997). Because…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. People v. QuintanaSupreme Court of Colorado · 1994
  2. People v. ArchuletaSupreme Court of Colorado · 1972
  3. City of Greeley v. HammanSupreme Court of Colorado · 1888
  4. Wilczynski v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado · 1995
  5. People v. RhorerColorado Court of Appeals · 1997

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Cooper v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado · 1999
  2. State v. StintonCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2004
  3. State v. StintonCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2004
  4. People v. ThomeczekColorado Court of Appeals · 2011
  5. People v. WidhalmColorado Court of Appeals · 1999

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API