Supreme Court of Colorado, 2024

The People of the State of Colorado v. Christopher G. Smith.

The People of the State of Colorado v. Christopher G. Smith.
Supreme Court of Colorado · Decided August 5, 2024

The People of the State of Colorado v. Christopher G. Smith.

Opinion

1

The People of the State of Colorado, Petitioner
v.

Christopher G. Smith.
Respondent

No. 24SC102

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc

August 5, 2024


Court of Appeals Case No. 21CA1738

DENIED PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

2

Petition for Writ of Certiorari DENIED.

JUSTICE BOATRIGHT would grant as to the following issue:

If the trial court properly instructs the jury on every element of the substantive offense (second-degree murder) but improperly refuses to instruct the jury on a mitigating factor that can only affect sentencing (heat of passion), should the prosecutor be forced to retry the offense on remand? Or should the prosecutor have the option of accepting the jury's conviction-while conceding the sentencing mitigator?

Opinion

1

The People of the State of Colorado, Petitioner
v.
Christopher G. Smith. Respondent

No. 24SC102

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc

August 5, 2024


          Court of Appeals Case No. 21CA1738

          DENIED PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

2

         Petition for Writ of Certiorari DENIED.

         JUSTICE BOATRIGHT would grant as to the following issue:

         If the trial court properly instructs the jury on every element of the substantive offense (second-degree murder) but improperly refuses to instruct the jury on a mitigating factor that can only affect sentencing (heat of passion), should the prosecutor be forced to retry the offense on remand? Or should the prosecutor have the option of accepting the jury's conviction-while conceding the sentencing mitigator?

Opinion

Court of Appeals Case No. 21CA1738

DENIED PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

2

Petition for Writ of Certiorari DENIED.

JUSTICE BOATRIGHT would grant as to the following issue:

If the trial court properly instructs the jury on every element of the substantive offense (second-degree murder) but improperly refuses to instruct the jury on a mitigating factor that can only affect sentencing (heat of passion), should the prosecutor be forced to retry the offense on remand? Or should the prosecutor have the option of accepting the jury's conviction-while conceding the sentencing mitigator?

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.