Skip to main content

People v. Crow

Citations

  • 789 P.2d 1104
  • 14 Brief Times Rptr. 522
  • 1990 Colo. LEXIS 304
  • 1990 WL 48769

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that trial courts have discretion to rule on motions to continue, and such rulings will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of a clear showing of abuse
  • finding no abuse of discretion when the trial court ordered suppression based on the People's failure to procure a witness's presence at a suppression hearing
  • regarding a trial court’s ruling denying a motion for a continuance in criminal case
  • contrasting the inadvertent failure in Bakari with the \knowing\ failure to subpoena important witnesses
  • “A court abuses its discretion only when, based on the particular circumstances confronting it, its ruling . . . is manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, or unfair.”
  • a court must evaluate all of the circumstances surrounding the requested continuance

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Quinn

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

18 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.