Colo. Rev. Stat. » Title 18
Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-108 (2024)

Offenses not classified

✓ C.R.S. 2024: the 2025 and 2026 sessions are not included
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(Repealed)

Source: L. 71: R&RE, p. 391, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 40-1-108. L. 76, Ex. Sess.: 10, § 1. L. 79: Entire section amended, p. 671, § 21, effective July 1. L. 93: Entire section amended, p. 1985, § 11, effective July 1. L. 2000: Entire section amended, p. 1050, § 15, effective September 1. L. 2002: Entire section repealed, p. 1463, § 3, effective October 1. Editor's note: This section was relocated to § 18-1.3-504 in 2002.

Cross references: For the legislative declaration contained in the 2002 act repealing this section, see section 1 of chapter 318, Session Laws of Colorado 2002.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1976–2012 · leading case: People v. Thoro Prods. Co., 45 P.3d 737 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Thoro Prods. Co., 45 P.3d 737 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 5× “2000, govern the construction of and punishment for any offense defined in any statute, except as otherwise expressly provided by § 18-1-108, C.R.S.2000. Section 18-1-103, C.”
Oram v. People, 255 P.3d 1032 (Colo. 2011). · cites it 5× “- Further, section 18-1-108(1), C.R.S. (2010), instructs that the criminal code and other Colorado statutes govern the construction and punishment of any defined offense, but also "the construction and application of any defense to a prosecution for such an offense.”
People v. Speer, 255 P.3d 1115 (Colo. 2011). · cites it 3× “May 16, 2011) (quoting § 18-1-108(1), C.R.S. (2010)). The legislature has abolished not only common law offenses, but also common law defenses.”
Griego v. People, 19 P.3d 1 (Colo. 2001). “2d at 217 ; see also § 18-1-108(1), 6 C.R.S. (2000) (mandating that the provisions of the criminal code govern the construction of any offense defined in any statute of the state).”
People v. Holwuttle, 155 P.3d 447 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “However, this statute is a part of the criminal code that establishes definitions for "eriminal culpability" generally, and § 18-1-108(1), C.R.S.2005, mandates that "the provisions of this code govern the construction of and punishment for any offense defined in any statute of…”
People v. Moore, 117 P.3d 1 (Colo. Ct. App. 2004). “Nothing in either the text of § 18-1-108(3) or numerous cases decided before Page supports the view that the traditional power of a court to impose consecutive sentences was limited by the prosecution’s argument or the instructions in a particular case.”
People v. Watkins, 2012 COA 15, 282 P.3d 500. · cites it 2× “The Medical Use of Marijuana Amendment Does Not Create an Exception to Section 18-1.”
People v. Onesimo Romero, 746 P.2d 534 (Colo. 1987). · cites it 2× “Accordingly, the applicable statute of limitations is not six months, but eighteen months. § 16-5-401, 8 C.R.S. (1982). Because the prosecution filed the misdemeanor information within eighteen months, the charge should be reinstated.”
Ruth v. Cnty. Ct. in & for El Paso Cnty., 563 P.2d 956 (Colo. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 2× “As to defendants' assertion that the offenses with which plaintiff was charged did not possess the requisite commonality so as to fall within the scope of § 18-1-108(2), C.R.S.1973, we conclude that, under the pertinent authority in this jurisdiction, the test of identity of…”
People v. Spann, 549 P.2d 427 (Colo. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 2× “Section § 18-1-108, C.R.S.1973, provides: "Any felony, misdemeanor, or petty offense defined by state statute outside this code without specification of its class shall be punishable as provided in the statute defining it, or as otherwise provided by law outside this code.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-108(1): 5 cases
Oram v. People, 255 P.3d 1032 (Colo. 2011). “- Further, section 18-1-108(1), C.R.S. (2010), instructs that the criminal code and other Colorado statutes govern the construction and punishment of any defined offense, but also "the construction and application of any defense to a prosecution for such an offense.”
People v. Speer, 255 P.3d 1115 (Colo. 2011). “May 16, 2011) (quoting § 18-1-108(1), C.R.S. (2010)). The legislature has abolished not only common law offenses, but also common law defenses.”
Griego v. People, 19 P.3d 1 (Colo. 2001). “2d at 217 ; see also § 18-1-108(1), 6 C.R.S. (2000) (mandating that the provisions of the criminal code govern the construction of any offense defined in any statute of the state).”
People v. Holwuttle, 155 P.3d 447 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006). “However, this statute is a part of the criminal code that establishes definitions for "eriminal culpability" generally, and § 18-1-108(1), C.R.S.2005, mandates that "the provisions of this code govern the construction of and punishment for any offense defined in any statute of…”
People v. Watkins, 2012 COA 15, 282 P.3d 500. “The Medical Use of Marijuana Amendment Does Not Create an Exception to Section 18-1.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-108(2): 1 case
Ruth v. Cnty. Ct. in & for El Paso Cnty., 563 P.2d 956 (Colo. Ct. App. 1977). “As to defendants' assertion that the offenses with which plaintiff was charged did not possess the requisite commonality so as to fall within the scope of § 18-1-108(2), C.R.S.1973, we conclude that, under the pertinent authority in this jurisdiction, the test of identity of…”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-108(3): 1 case
People v. Moore, 117 P.3d 1 (Colo. Ct. App. 2004). “Nothing in either the text of § 18-1-108(3) or numerous cases decided before Page supports the view that the traditional power of a court to impose consecutive sentences was limited by the prosecution’s argument or the instructions in a particular 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.