(1) This code shall be construed in such manner as to promote maximum fulfillment of its general purposes, namely: (a) To define offenses, to define adequately the act and mental state which constitute each offense, to place limitations upon the condemnation of conduct as criminal when it is without fault, and to give fair warning to all persons concerning the nature of the conduct prohibited and the penalties authorized upon conviction; (b) To forbid the commission of offenses and to prevent their occurrence through the deterrent influence of the sentences authorized; to provide for the rehabilitation of those convicted and their punishment when required in the interests of public protection; (c) To differentiate on reasonable grounds between serious and minor offenses, and prescribe penalties which are proportionate to the seriousness of offenses and which permit recognition of differences in rehabilitation possibilities as between individual offenders; (d) To prevent arbitrary or oppressive treatment of persons accused or convicted of offenses and to identify certain minimum standards for criminal justice which, within the concept of due process of law, have the stature of substantive rights of persons accused of crime; (e) To promote acceptance of responsibility and accountability by offenders and to provide restoration and healing for victims and the community while attempting to reduce recidivism and the costs to society by the use of restorative justice practices.
Source: L. 71: R&RE, p. 388, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 40-1-102. L. 2011: (1)(e) added, (HB 11-1032), ch. 296, p. 1401, § 4, effective August 10.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
24
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1977–2024 · leading case:
People v. Lewis, 564 P.2d 111 (Colo. 1977).
People v. Lewis, 564 P.2d 111 (Colo. 1977).
· cites it 9× “, Note, Detainers and the Correctional Process, 1966 Wash.”
Platt v. People, 201 P.3d 545 (Colo. 2009).
· cites it 4× “Justice HOBBS dissents, and Justice MARTINEZ and Justice BENDER join in the dissent.”
People v. Rodriguez, 914 P.2d 230 (Colo. 1996).
“1994); see also § 18-1-102(1)(c), 8B C.R.S. (1986) (stating that one purpose of the Colorado Criminal Code is "[t]o differentiate on reasonable grounds between serious and minor offenses" (emphasis added)); § 18-1-102.”
People v. Madonna, 651 P.2d 378 (Colo. 1982).
· cites it 3× “See section 18-1-102(1)(b), C.R.S. 1973 (1978 Repl.”
In re the People ex rel. W.P., 295 P.3d 514 (Colo. 2013).
· cites it 2× “" § 18-1-102, C.R.S. (2012). 128 Unless the Code of Criminal Procedure expressly states otherwise, it applies only in criminal proceedings.”
Frazier v. People, 90 P.3d 807 (Colo. 2004).
“1998); see also § 18-1-102(a), 6 C.R.S. (2003) (requiring a court to construe a penal statute in a manner that gives “fair warning to all persons concerning the nature of the conduct prohibited and the penalties *814 authorized upon conviction.”
People v. Wilson, 599 P.2d 970 (Colo. Ct. App. 1979).
· cites it 3× “Section 18-1-102(1)(b), C.R.S. 1973 (1978 Repl.”
People v. Hernandez-Clavel, 186 P.3d 96 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 2× “See § 18-1-102, C.R.S.2007; Adair v. People, 651 P.”
People v. Martinez, 628 P.2d 608 (Colo. 1981).
· cites it 2× “g of the nature of the sentence to be imposed, and establishing fair procedures for the imposition of sentences; (c) To prevent crime and promote respect for the law by providing an effective deterrent to others likely to commit similar offenses; and (d) To promote…”
People v. Martinez, 18 P.3d 831 (Colo. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 2× “six classes of felonies as defined in section 18-1-105, three classes of misdemeanors as defined in section 18-1-106, and two classes of petty offenses as defined in section 18-1-107.”
A.P.E. v. People, 20 P.3d 1179 (Colo. 2001).
· cites it 2× “§ 18-1-102(1)(a), (c), 6 C.R.S. (2000) (stating that the Colorado Criminal Code is intended to give all persons fair warning of prohibited conduct and to prevent the arbitrary treatment of persons accused of offenses); see also Anderson, 614 A.”
People v. Smith, 29 P.3d 347 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 2× “Nor do we perceive any conflict between the court's interpretation of the sentencing scheme and the requirements of § 18-1-102, C.R.S.2000, that criminal statutes must provide fair warning of possible penalties and recognize differences in rehabilitative possibilities.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-102(1)(a) — 3 cases
Platt v. People, 201 P.3d 545 (Colo. 2009).
“Justice HOBBS dissents, and Justice MARTINEZ and Justice BENDER join in the dissent.”
A.P.E. v. People, 20 P.3d 1179 (Colo. 2001).
“§ 18-1-102(1)(a), (c), 6 C.R.S. (2000) (stating that the Colorado Criminal Code is intended to give all persons fair warning of prohibited conduct and to prevent the arbitrary treatment of persons accused of offenses); see also Anderson, 614 A.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-102(1)(b) — 3 cases
People v. Madonna, 651 P.2d 378 (Colo. 1982).
“See section 18-1-102(1)(b), C.R.S. 1973 (1978 Repl.”
People v. Wilson, 599 P.2d 970 (Colo. Ct. App. 1979).
“Section 18-1-102(1)(b), C.R.S. 1973 (1978 Repl.”
People v. Martinez, 628 P.2d 608 (Colo. 1981).
“g of the nature of the sentence to be imposed, and establishing fair procedures for the imposition of sentences; (c) To prevent crime and promote respect for the law by providing an effective deterrent to others likely to commit similar offenses; and (d) To promote…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-102(1)(c) — 5 cases
People v. Rodriguez, 914 P.2d 230 (Colo. 1996).
“1994); see also § 18-1-102(1)(c), 8B C.R.S. (1986) (stating that one purpose of the Colorado Criminal Code is "[t]o differentiate on reasonable grounds between serious and minor offenses" (emphasis added)); § 18-1-102.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-102(1)(d) — 1 case
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-102(a) — 1 case
Frazier v. People, 90 P.3d 807 (Colo. 2004).
“1998); see also § 18-1-102(a), 6 C.R.S. (2003) (requiring a court to construe a penal statute in a manner that gives “fair warning to all persons concerning the nature of the conduct prohibited and the penalties *814 authorized upon conviction.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-102(d) — 3 cases
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-102(l)(c) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.