People v. Liggett

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the prosecutor’s repeated references to defendant as a “con man” during closing argument in a bench trial did not constitute plain error
• prosecutor may comment on the strength of the defendant’s theory of the case
• “A prosecutor’s comment on the lack of evidence confirming a defendant’s theory of the case is permissible and does not shift the burden of proof.”
• “[A] defendant who testifies in a criminal case may be cross-examined like any other witness regarding his or her credibility.”
• potential prosecutorial misconduct during a bench trial didn’t constitute plain error
• “Proof of intent is often necessarily indirect, and the fact finder thus may ‘inf er an intent to cause the natural and probable consequences of unlawful 5 voluntary acts.’” (quoting People v. Fisher , 759 P.2d 33, 38 (Col o. 1988))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

8 cases in this archive cite this case.

• People v. DESTRO
  Colorado Court of Appeals· 2009-06-11· cited 662×
• People v. Marko
  Colorado Court of Appeals· 2015-10-08· cited 656×
• v. Denhartog
  Colorado Court of Appeals· 2019-02-21· cited 337×
• People v. Koper
  Colorado Court of Appeals· 2018-09-20· cited 244×
• Liggett v. People
  Supreme Court of Colorado· 2006-05-15· cited 83×
• People v. Vasquez
  Colorado Court of Appeals· 2006-06-29· cited 18×
• People v. Washington
  Colorado Court of Appeals· 2007-12-18· cited 16×
• v. Richardson
  Colorado Court of Appeals· 2018-08-23· cited 8×