Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

People v. Lacallo

Colorado Court of Appeals

Decided June 19, 2014No. Court of Appeals No. 12CA0001Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

JUDGE ROMAN

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

[ 55 In my view, the nature of sufficiency of the evidence review does not lend itself to plain error analysis. Accordingly, even though the sufficiency of the evidence contention is unpreserved, I would reach the merits and conclude that insufficient evidence exists to sustain the conviction for engaging in a riot under 18-9-104(1), C.R.98.2018.

I 56 Typically, an appellate court begins its analysis by reviewing a trial court's ruling to determine if any error occurred. Seq, eg., People v. Jones, 2013 CO 59, ¶11, 311 P.3d 274 (a trial…

2Cases cited46 opinions

  1. Jackson v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  2. Hagos v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado · 2012
  3. People v. DixonIllinois Supreme Court · 1982
  4. Garza v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 2008
  5. Dempsey v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado · 2005

41 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