People v. Bornman’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently November 2023
18 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant v. Frank D. RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee. · Wassenich v. City & County of Denver · People v. Freeman · Houser v. Eckhardt · Board of Assessment Appeals v. Colorado Arlberg Club
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) That the Defendant, (2) in the State of Colorado, on or about November 12,1997, (3) knowingly, (a) obtained or exercised control over, (b) anything of value, (c) which is the property of another, (4) without authorization, or by deception, and (5) with intent to permanently deprive the other person of the use or benefit of the thing of value.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“explicitly require a finding that the defendant knew that his possession or control of the item was without the authorization of the owner.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Both the wording of § 18-4-401(1) and the explicit provisions of § 18-1-504(1)(a), C.R.S. [2009] (mistake of fact relieves from criminal lability if it "negatives the existence of a particular mental state essential to commission of the offense"), make it clear that, if defendant entertained a good faith belief that he was entitled to take the vehicle, he was not guilty of theft. To apply an objective standard in such circumstances would be to authorize a conviction of theft based upon simple negligence. ... [It was reversible error to give the elemental instruction in the above form and to prohibit counsel from arguing that defendant possessed the honest, good faith belief that he had the requisite authority, irrespective of the belief that a reasonable person might have formed under the same circumstances.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.