context: The .legality of simply owning, possessing, carrying, or concealing the knives was irrelevant. Thus, the trial court did not err in refusing this instruction.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 928 P.2d 781, 784
citation_a.parenthetical: trial court "should not instruct on abstract legal principles unrelated to the issues in controversy"
citation_a.sentence: See People v. Montoya, 928 P.2d 781, 784 (Colo.App.1996) (trial court “should not instruct on abstract legal principles unrelated to the issues in controversy”); see also People v. Covington, 988 P.2d 657, 663 (Colo.App.1999) (“[ajlthough the instruction was an accurate statement of the law, it was superfluous and should not be given”), rev’d on other grounds, 19 P.3d 15 (Colo.2001).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 988 P.2d 657, 663
citation_b.parenthetical: "[ajlthough the instruction was an accurate statement of the law, it was superfluous and should not be given"
citation_b.sentence: See People v. Montoya, 928 P.2d 781, 784 (Colo.App.1996) (trial court “should not instruct on abstract legal principles unrelated to the issues in controversy”); see also People v. Covington, 988 P.2d 657, 663 (Colo.App.1999) (“[ajlthough the instruction was an accurate statement of the law, it was superfluous and should not be given”), rev’d on other grounds, 19 P.3d 15 (Colo.2001).