The jury was also properly instructed on self-defense. The sole question is whether the conviction should be reversed because the prosecution called Ortiz to testify as part of the prosecution’s case-in-chief and not as a rebuttal witness. Ortiz’s testimony was offered to impeach and rebut Kruse’s claim of self-defense. Kruse claims that section 16-8-107(1) bars the admission of Ortiz’s testimony in the prosecution’s case-in-chief, but recognizes that the evidence could properly be admitted as rebuttal testimony. See § 16-8-107(1). The alleged error occurred when Ortiz testified as a prosecution witness and not as a rebuttal witness. In our view, the untimely admission of Ortiz’s testimony did not constitute plain error under the facts in this case. The court o 7 P.2d 759, 761 (1978) (<HOLDING>); Berge v. Berge, 189 Colo. 103, 104, 536 P.2d
holding that supreme court need not consider issue not raised in petition for certiorari holding it is settled that the supreme court may consider questions raised on the first appeal after which the court denied a petition for a writ of certiorari as well as those that were before the court of appeals upon the second appeal after which the court granted a petition for a writ of certiorari internal quotation marks omitted holding that supreme court would not consider issue not mentioned either in petition for rehearing or in petition for certiorari even though matter was argued before it holding that this court will consider a petition for a writ of certiorari only after the court of appeals has overruled the application for rehearing on the point challenged in the petition implying that the decision by the court of criminal appeals must be final before certiorari review would be available holding that even a remand by the supreme court for reconsideration in light of an intervening court opinion does not require the court to consider an argument raised for the first time in a petition for certiorari