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

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-201 (2026)

State jurisdiction

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) A person is subject to prosecution in this state for an offense which he commits, by his own conduct or that of another for which he is legally accountable, if:

(a) The conduct constitutes an offense and is committed either wholly or partly within the state; or

(b) The conduct outside the state constitutes an attempt, as defined by this code, to commit an offense within the state; or

(c) The conduct outside the state constitutes a conspiracy to commit an offense within the state, and an act in furtherance of the conspiracy occurs in the state; or

(d) The conduct within the state constitutes an attempt, solicitation, or conspiracy to commit in another jurisdiction an offense prohibited under the laws of this state and such other jurisdiction.

(2) An offense is committed partly within this state if conduct occurs in this state which is an element of an offense or if the result of conduct in this state is such an element. In homicide, the "result" is either the physical contact which causes death or the death itself; and if the body of a criminal homicide victim is found within the state, the death is presumed to have occurred within the state.

(3) Whether an offender is in or outside of the state is immaterial to the commission of an offense based on an omission to perform a duty imposed by the law of this state.

Source: L. 71: R&RE, p. 391, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 40-1-201.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 30 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1975–2025 · leading case: People v. Chase, 411 P.3d 740 (Colo. Ct. App. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Chase, 411 P.3d 740 (Colo. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 21× “because there was no evidence that "any aspect of this crime occurred in Colorado," given that "neither the participant or the victims were in the state," as required under section 18-1-201, C.R.S.2012. ¶ 13 The trial court denied the motion, reasoning that regardless of whether…”
Pinelli v. Dist. Ct. in & for 18th Jud. Dist., 595 P.2d 225 (Colo. 1979). · cites it 3× “1973, which provides: “(4) If a person conspires to commit a number of crimes, he is guilty of only one conspiracy so long as such multiple crimes are part of a single criminal episode.” The question is thus whether or not the conspiracies between the petitioners alleged in the…”
People v. Helms, 2016 COA 90 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 5× “Thus, section 18-3-405.4(l)(a) is limited to situations in which the criminal conduct occurs either wholly or partially in Colorado.”
People v. Lehnert, 163 P.3d 1111 (Colo. 2007). · cites it 2× “Interestingly, although the term "overt act' appears in the statutory definition of "Conspiracy," see § 18-1-201, C.R.S. (2006), and conduct beyond "mere preparation" has at times been referred to as a requirement of attempt, see People v.”
People v. Gardner, 250 P.3d 1262 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 4× “Jurisdiction of District Court Regarding Location of Theft Gardner also contends that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over his cases because the People failed to establish that the thefts were committed "wholly or partially" within Colorado, as required by…”
People v. Haynie, 826 P.2d 371 (Colo. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 7× “1982) and § 18-1-201(2), C.R.S. (1986 Repl. Yol. 8B), defendant contends that, since he was outside Colorado by that date, there could be no seizing and carrying away without lawful justification contrary to the Colorado statute, § 18-3-301(1), C.”
People v. Sharp, 143 P.3d 1047 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 4× “See § 18-1-201, C.R.S. 2005; People v. Brown, 70 P.”
People v. Boyd, 387 P.3d 755 (Colo. 2017). · cites it 2× “See § 18-1-201(1)(a), C.R.S. (2016) (“A person is subject to prosecution in this state for an offense which he commits .”
People v. Perez-Hernandez, 348 P.3d 451 (Colo. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 4× “" § 18-1-201(1)(a), C.R.S8.2018. An "information is sufficient if it can be understood therefrom .”
People v. Tinkle, 714 P.2d 919 (Colo. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 7× “” Section 18-1-201, C.R.S. (1978 Repl.Vol. 8).”
People v. Jacobs, 91 P.3d 438 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “See § 18-1-201(1)(a), C.R.S.2003. When the sufficiency of evidence is challenged on appeal, the reviewing court must consider whether, “after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements…”
People v. Martinez, 543 P.2d 1290 (Colo. Ct. App. 1975). · cites it 5× “" Moreover, by § 18-1-201, C.R.S.1973, Colorado has modified the common law rule of limited territorial jurisdiction by enlarging its power to prosecute crimes that may originate outside the state: "(1) A person is subject to prosecution in this state for an offense which he…”
Show all 30 citing cases →
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-201(1) — 1 case
People v. Martinez, 543 P.2d 1290 (Colo. Ct. App. 1975). “" Moreover, by § 18-1-201, C.R.S.1973, Colorado has modified the common law rule of limited territorial jurisdiction by enlarging its power to prosecute crimes that may originate outside the state: "(1) A person is subject to prosecution in this state for an offense which he…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-201(1)(a) — 9 cases
People v. Chase, 411 P.3d 740 (Colo. Ct. App. 2013). “because there was no evidence that "any aspect of this crime occurred in Colorado," given that "neither the participant or the victims were in the state," as required under section 18-1-201, C.R.S.2012. ¶ 13 The trial court denied the motion, reasoning that regardless of whether…”
People v. Boyd, 387 P.3d 755 (Colo. 2017). “See § 18-1-201(1)(a), C.R.S. (2016) (“A person is subject to prosecution in this state for an offense which he commits .”
People v. Perez-Hernandez, 348 P.3d 451 (Colo. Ct. App. 2013). “" § 18-1-201(1)(a), C.R.S8.2018. An "information is sufficient if it can be understood therefrom .”
People v. Jacobs, 91 P.3d 438 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003). “See § 18-1-201(1)(a), C.R.S.2003. When the sufficiency of evidence is challenged on appeal, the reviewing court must consider whether, “after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements…”
v. Nevelik, 2021 COA 30 (Colo. Ct. App. 2021).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-201(2) — 6 cases
People v. Chase, 411 P.3d 740 (Colo. Ct. App. 2013). “because there was no evidence that "any aspect of this crime occurred in Colorado," given that "neither the participant or the victims were in the state," as required under section 18-1-201, C.R.S.2012. ¶ 13 The trial court denied the motion, reasoning that regardless of whether…”
People v. Haynie, 826 P.2d 371 (Colo. Ct. App. 1991). “1982) and § 18-1-201(2), C.R.S. (1986 Repl. Yol. 8B), defendant contends that, since he was outside Colorado by that date, there could be no seizing and carrying away without lawful justification contrary to the Colorado statute, § 18-3-301(1), C.”
People v. Martinez, 543 P.2d 1290 (Colo. Ct. App. 1975). “" Moreover, by § 18-1-201, C.R.S.1973, Colorado has modified the common law rule of limited territorial jurisdiction by enlarging its power to prosecute crimes that may originate outside the state: "(1) A person is subject to prosecution in this state for an offense which he…”
People v. Tinkle, 714 P.2d 919 (Colo. Ct. App. 1985). “” Section 18-1-201, C.R.S. (1978 Repl.Vol. 8).”
v. Nevelik, 2021 COA 30 (Colo. Ct. App. 2021).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-201(3) — 2 cases
People v. Haynie, 826 P.2d 371 (Colo. Ct. App. 1991). “1982) and § 18-1-201(2), C.R.S. (1986 Repl. Yol. 8B), defendant contends that, since he was outside Colorado by that date, there could be no seizing and carrying away without lawful justification contrary to the Colorado statute, § 18-3-301(1), C.”
People v. Brennan, 2025 COA 68 (Colo. Ct. App. 2025).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-201(4) — 1 case
Pinelli v. Dist. Ct. in & for 18th Jud. Dist., 595 P.2d 225 (Colo. 1979). “1973, which provides: “(4) If a person conspires to commit a number of crimes, he is guilty of only one conspiracy so long as such multiple crimes are part of a single criminal episode.” The question is thus whether or not the conspiracies between the petitioners alleged in the…”
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.