People v. Perea

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that a prosecutor may attempt to draw the jury’s attention to back to relevant evidence
• explaining that during closing remarks, prosecutors have wide latitude in the language and style they choose to employ, especially in responding to an argument by the defense
• interpreting Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18–18–405(1)(a), 2004: “[I]t is unlawful for any person knowingly to . . . possess . . . a controlled substance.”
• concl uding that the prosecution did not denigrate defense counsel with a comment that defense counsel “has misstated the law” because the comm ent was “made as a means of focusing the jury’s attention on relevant evidence”
• “[F]orty-eight states have adopted some version of the Uniform Act.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).