People v. Ortega
| Decision Date | 09 April 2015 |
| Docket Number | Court of Appeals No. 12CA1340 |
| Citation | 370 P.3d 181 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Ramon Anthony ORTEGA, Defendant–Appellant. |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
4 cases
-
Graham v. State
...numerous other instances of serious misconduct in the prosecutor's closing argument)." 89 P.3d at 483-84. See also People v. Ortega, 370 P.3d 181, 190 (Colo. App. 2015)."The quotation from Burke is more troubling, however, because it was an improper call for justice beyond the parameters of......
-
People v. Roberson
...a matter for de novo appellate review, at least where constitutional rights are concerned.”); see also People v. Ortega, 2015 COA 38, ¶ 8, 370 P.3d 181 (reviewing de novo the defendant's contention that the trial court violated his privilege against self-incrimination).IV. Analysis ¶ 21 The......
-
People v. Thames
...novo whether the prosecutor impermissibly commented on a defendant's right to remain silent. See People v. Ortega , 2015 COA 38, ¶ 8, 370 P.3d 181, 184 (" ‘[W]here constitutional rights are concerned,’ law application ‘is a matter for de novo appellate review.’ " (quoting People v. Matheny ......
-
People v. Jaquez
...characteristics of a person’s voice,’ such as ‘tone, accents, or speech impediments.’ " People v. Ortega , 2015 COA 38, ¶ 28, 370 P.3d 181 (quoting York v. Commonwealth , 353 S.W.3d 603, 606 (Ky. 2011) ).¶ 37 The question, therefore, is this: Were the words spoken by Jaquez merely a voice e......
2 books & journal articles
-
Rule 403 EXCLUSION OF RELEVANT EVIDENCE ON GROUNDS OF PREJUDICE, CONFUSION, OR WASTE OF TIME
...People v. Hogan, 114 P.3d 42 (Colo. App. 2004); People v. Gonzales-Quevedo, 203 P.3d 609 (Colo. App. 2008); People v. Ortega, 2015 COA 38, 370 P.3d 181; People v. Mendenhall, 2015 COA 107M, 363 P.3d 758; People v. Johnson, 2019 COA 159, ___ P.3d...
-
Chapter 13 - § 13.2 • DEMONSTRATIONS
...On the other hand, asking a defendant to read an excerpt of a transcript of a drug buy has been found to be permissible. People v. Ortega, 370 P.3d 181, 184 (Colo. App. 2015). This is because the demonstration reveals only qualities of the defendant's voice and is non-communicative. Id. at ......