Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 17,300+ case briefs...

Rupert v. People

Supreme Court of Colorado
429 P.2d 276 (1967)


The state of Colorado (plaintiff) charged Rupert (defendant) with kidnapping. Rupert pled not guilty by reason of insanity. A trial to determine his sanity followed. Durham, a lay witness, gave testimony describing his knowledge of Rupert and the acts, conduct, and conversation on which Durham based his opinion that Rupert was sane. Rupert's expert witness testified Rupert was insane. The jury found Rupert was sane. A separate jury convicted Rupert on the kidnapping charge. On appeal to the Supreme Court of Colorado, Rupert argued the judge in the sanity trial erred by: (1) admitting Durham's testimony and (2) refusing to direct the jury to find Rupert insane.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (McWilliams, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 457,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 457,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 17,300 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial