People v. Lancaster

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a trial court’s interpretation of the Rape Shield Statute is reviewed de novo
• “Because a prosecutor may decline to bring charges for any number of reasons, the fact that sexual assault reports by the victim did not result in charges being brought is not a sufficient offer of proof . . . .”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

4 cases in this archive cite this case.

• People v. Valdez
  Colorado Court of Appeals· 2017-04-06· cited 509×
• and 14CA1436. People v. Harris
  Colorado Court of Appeals· 2016-11-03· cited 19×
• State of Iowa v. Berlou Joe Barnard
  Court of Appeals of Iowa· 2019-11-06
• People v. Larry D. Buckner
  Colorado Court of Appeals· 2022-02-03

Cites

16 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Blakely v. Washington
  Supreme Court· 2004-06-24· cited 13,994×
• Lopez v. People
  Supreme Court of Colorado· 2005-06-27· cited 1,102×
• People v. Clark
  Colorado Court of Appeals· 2015-04-23· cited 989×
• People v. Conyac
  Colorado Court of Appeals· 2014-01-30· cited 901×
• People v. Villa
  Colorado Court of Appeals· 2009-10-01· cited 861×
• Maryland v. King
  Supreme Court· 2013-06-03· cited 671×
• People v. Shreck
  Colorado Court of Appeals· 2004-11-10· cited 629×
• Vensor v. People
  Supreme Court of Colorado· 2007-02-05· cited 292×
• People v. Cook
  Colorado Court of Appeals· 2014-03-27· cited 177×
• People v. Weiss
  Supreme Court of Colorado· 2006-04-24· cited 130×
• People v. Linares-Guzman
  Colorado Court of Appeals· 2008-06-26· cited 102×
• People v. Williams
  Supreme Court of Colorado· 1976-12-13· cited 46×
• Hunsaker, Jr. v. People
  Supreme Court of Colorado· 2015-06-15· cited 40×
• Elizabeth Haskell v. Kamala D. Harris
  Ninth Circuit· 2014-03-20· cited 28×
• People v. Brunsting
  Supreme Court of Colorado· 2013-07-01· cited 12×
• People v. Rossman
  Colorado Court of Appeals· 2006-02-09· cited 11×