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

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-202 (2026)

Place of trial - applicability

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

(1) Except as otherwise provided by law, criminal actions shall be tried in the county where the offense was committed, or in any other county where an act in furtherance of the offense occurred.

(2) If a person committing an offense upon the person of another is in one county and his victim is in another county at the time of the commission of an act constituting an element of the offense, the offense is committed and trial may be had in either of said counties.

(3) In a case involving the death of a person, the offense is committed and the offender may be tried in any county in which the cause of death is inflicted, or in which death occurs, or in which the body of the deceased or any part of such body is found.

(4) Theft of property is committed and the offender may be tried in any county in which he exercised control over the property.

(5) If the commission of an offense commenced outside the state is consummated within this state, the offense is committed and the offender shall be tried in the county where the offense is consummated.

(6) If an offense is committed in or upon any automobile, trailer, railroad car, aircraft, or other vehicle of transportation passing within or over this state, the offense is deemed to have been committed and the offender may be tried in any county through or over which the vehicle of transportation passed.

(7) (a) When multiple crimes are based upon the same act or series of acts arising from the same criminal episode and are committed in several counties, the offender may be tried in any county in which any one of the individual crimes could have been tried, regardless of whether or not the counties are in the same judicial district.

(b) (I) For purposes of this subsection (7), when a person commits one of the offenses listed in subparagraph (II) of this paragraph (b) on two or more occasions within a six-month period, it may be considered part of the same criminal episode. Nothing in this subsection (7) shall bar prosecution of an offense that could have been joined in another prosecution.

(II) The provisions of subsection (7)(b)(I) of this section apply to the following offenses:

(A) Theft, as defined in section 18-4-401; (B) and (C) Repealed.

(D) Criminal mischief, as defined in section 18-4-501;

(E) Fraud by check, as defined in section 18-5-205;

(F) Defrauding a secured creditor or debtor, as defined in section 18-5-206;

(G) Failure to pay over assigned accounts, as defined in section 18-5-502;

(H) Concealment or removal of secured property, as defined in section 18-5-504;

(I) Failure to pay over proceeds, as defined in section 18-5-505;

(J) Unauthorized use of a financial transaction device, as defined in section 18-5-702;

(K) Cybercrime, as defined in section 18-5.5-102;

(L) Repealed.

(M) Trafficking in food stamps, as defined in section 26-2-306, C.R.S.;

(N) Unlawful use of a patient personal needs trust fund, as defined in section 25.5-6-206, C.R.S.;

(O) Repealed.

(P) Theft of a license plate, as described in section 42-5-104;

(Q) Theft in connection with assistive technology, as described in section 6-1-409, C.R.S.;

(R) Theft of farm products, as described in section 35-36-313;

(S) Fraud in connection with obtaining public assistance, as described in section 26-1- 127, C.R.S.;

(T) Fraud in connection with obtaining food stamps, as described in section 26-2-305, C.R.S.;

(U) An offense described in part 1 of article 5 of this title;

(V) Forgery, as defined in sections 18-5-102 and 18-5-104; and

(W) Identity theft, as defined in section 18-5-902.

(c) (I) For an indictment or information that includes an offense described in article 5 of this title, the offender may be tried in a county where the offense occurred, in a county where an act in furtherance of the offense occurred, or in a county where a bank, savings and loan, credit union, or government agency processed a document or transaction related to the offense.

(II) For the purpose of this section, "processed" means to physically handle a document or to make a written or electronic entry in a permanent or temporary record of the transaction, whether the entry is made manually or through automated means.

(8) An inchoate offense is committed and the offender may be tried in any county in which any act which is an element of the offense, including formation of the agreement in conspiracy, is committed.

(9) When a person in one county solicits, abets, agrees, aids, or attempts to aid another in the planning or commission of an offense in another county, the offense is committed and the offender may be tried for the offense in either county, or in any other county in which the principal offense could be tried.

(10) When an offense is committed on the boundary line between two counties, or so close thereto as to be difficult to readily ascertain in which county the offense occurred, the offense is committed and the offender may be tried for the offense in either county.

(11) Proof of the county in which the offense occurred or which county is the proper place for trial pursuant to this section shall not constitute an element of any offense and need not be proven by the prosecution at trial unless required by the statute defining the offense. Any challenge to the place of trial pursuant to this section shall be made by motion in writing no later than twenty-one days after arraignment, except for good cause shown. The court shall determine any such issue prior to the commencement of the trial and the selection of a jury. If the court finds that trial is not proper in the county in which the charges were filed, the court shall transfer the case to a court of appropriate jurisdiction in the proper county. Failure to challenge the place of trial as provided in this subsection (11) shall constitute a waiver of any objection to the place of trial. Pursuant to section 16-12-102 (2), C.R.S., the prosecution may file an interlocutory appeal of a decision transferring the case to another county.

(12) If a person commits the offense of failure to register as a sex offender as provided in section 18-3-412.5, the offense is committed and the offender may be tried in the county in which the offender was released from incarceration for commission of the offense requiring registration, in the county in which the offender resides, in the county in which the offender completed his or her last registration, or in the county in which the offender is apprehended.

(13) If a person commits identity theft as described in section 18-5-902, identity theft is committed and the offender may be tried in any county where a prohibited act was committed, in any county where an act in furtherance of the offense was committed, or in any county where the victim resides during all or part of the offense. For purposes of this subsection (13), a business entity resides in any county in which it maintains a physical location.

(14) (a) If a person commits sexual assault on a child as described in section 18-3-405 (1) and commits the offense as part of a pattern of sexual abuse as described in section 18-3-405 (2)(d), or commits sexual assault on a child by one in a position of trust as described in section 18-3-405.3 (1) and commits the offense as part of a pattern of sexual abuse as described in section 18-3-405.3 (2)(b), the offender may be tried for all acts:

(I) In a county where at least one of the acts constituting the offense or the pattern of sexual abuse was committed; or

(II) In a county where an act in furtherance of the offense was committed.

(b) This subsection (14) takes effect on April 4, 2017, and applies to an act constituting a pattern of sexual abuse for which the offense's statute of limitations has not yet run on April 4, 2017.

(c) Nothing in this subsection (14) allows for a defendant to be placed in jeopardy twice for the same incident of sexual conduct involving a child that has been previously alleged as an incident necessary to form a pattern of sexual abuse as defined in section 18-3-401(2.5) in violation of the prohibition against second trials in sections 18-1-301, 18-1-302, and 18-1-303.

Source: L. 71: R&RE, p. 391, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 40-1-202. L. 84: (10) added, p. 536, § 4, effective July 1. L. 87: (7) amended, p. 606, § 10, effective April 16. L. 92: (3) amended and

(11) added, p. 402, § 12, effective June 3. L. 95: (12) added, p. 469, § 17, effective July 1. L. 98:

(7) amended, p. 793, § 2, effective July 1. L. 2002: (12) amended, p. 1181, § 4, effective July 1. L. 2003: (7)(b)(II) amended and (7)(c) added, p. 976, § 15, effective April 17; (7)(b)(II)(S) and

(7)(b)(II)(T) amended and (7)(b)(II)(V) added, p. 1019, § 1, effective April 17. L. 2004: (7)(c)(I) amended, p. 1738, § 3, effective July 1. L. 2006: (7)(b)(II)(N) amended, p. 2005, § 60, effective July 1; (7)(b)(II)(W) and (13) added, p. 1317, §§ 2, 1, effective July 1. L. 2011: (12) amended, (SB 11-007), ch. 107, p. 335, § 1, effective August 10; (12) amended, (HB 11-1278), ch. 224, p. 964, § 8, effective August 10. L. 2012: (11) amended, (SB 12-175), ch. 208, p. 862, § 101, effective July 1. L. 2013: (7)(b)(II)(B) and (7)(b)(II)(C) repealed, (HB 13-1160), ch. 373, p. 2200, § 9, effective June 5. L. 2017: (14) added, (HB 17-1109), ch. 97, p. 292, § 1, effective April 4; IP(7)(b)(II) and (7)(b)(II)(L) amended, (HB 17-1245), ch. 240, p. 989, § 2, effective August 9; IP(7)(b)(II) and (7)(b)(II)(R) amended, (SB 17-225), ch. 262, p. 1246, § 5, effective August 9. L. 2018: (7)(b)(II)(K) amended, (HB 18-1200), ch. 379, p. 2293, § 5, effective August 8. L. 2020: IP(7)(b)(II) and (7)(b)(II)(R) amended, (HB 20-1213), ch. 160, p. 754, § 6, effective June 29. L. 2021: (7)(b)(II)(P) amended, (SB 21-271), ch. 462, p. 3166, § 178, effective March 1, 2022; repeal provisions in (7)(b)(II)(L) and (7)(b)(II)(O) added by revision, (SB 21-271), ch. 462, pp. 3166, 3331, §§ 178, 803.

Editor's note: (1) Amendments to subsection (7)(b)(II) by Senate Bill 03-147 and House Bill 03-1020 were harmonized.

(2) Subsection (7)(b)(II)(V) was originally numbered as (7)(b)(II)(U) in House Bill 03- 1020 but has been renumbered on revision for ease of location.

(3) Subsection (7)(b)(II)(L) provided for the repeal of subsection (7)(b)(II)(L), effective March 1, 2022. (See L. 2021, pp. 3166, 3331.)

(4) Subsection (7)(b)(II)(O) provided for the repeal of subsection (7)(b)(II)(O), effective March 1, 2022. (See L. 2021, pp. 3166, 3331.)

Cross references: For similar provisions concerning the place of trial, see Crim. P. 18; for change of venue, see part 1 of article 6 of title 16; for the place of trial of an action for violation of a custody order, see § 18-3-304 (4).

PART 3 WHEN PROSECUTION BARRED BY FORMER PROCEEDINGS Cross references: For constitutional provisions concerning double jeopardy, see § 18 of art. II, Colo. Const. Law reviews: For article, "Pronouncements of the U.S. Supreme Court Relating to the Criminal Law Field: 1985-1986", which discusses cases relating to double jeopardy, see 15 Colo. Law. 1572 (1986).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 37 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1975–2025 · leading case: People v. Cortez, 737 P.2d 810 (Colo. 1987).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Cortez, 737 P.2d 810 (Colo. 1987). · cites it 54× “(1986): When multiple crimes are based upon the same act or series of acts arising from the same criminal episode and are committed in several counties, the offender may be tried in any county in which any one of the individual crimes could have been tried.”
People v. Lewis, 433 P.3d 70 (Colo. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 16× “" The instruction's language was taken nearly verbatim from section 18-1-202(11), C.R.S. 2017, and the court noted that, under that statute, any issues pertaining to the proper venue for trial had to be raised before trial or they were waived.”
Mosley v. People, 2017 CO 20 (Colo. 2017). · cites it 2× “ional circumstances of the case and the court enters specific findings with respect to the justification; (h) The period of delay between the new date set for trial following the expiration of the time periods excluded by paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), and (f) of this subsection…”
People v. Taylor, 732 P.2d 1172 (Colo. 1987). · cites it 18× “” While there can be no question that under section 18-1-202 an offense is committed in that county where the causative criminal conduct takes place or the proscribed result occurs, see Clax-ton v.”
v. Rojas, 2019 CO 86 (Colo. 2019). · cites it 8× “Separate References ¶25 Lastly, Rojas directs us to section 18-1-202(7), C.R.S. (2019), to support her argument that the legislature intended to create a separate crime.”
People v. Reed, 132 P.3d 347 (Colo. 2006). · cites it 18× “Because the district court failed to determine, however, whether the severed counts were also triable, within the meaning of section 18-1-202, in Arapahoe County, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.”
People v. Joseph, 920 P.2d 850 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 15× “II, § 16; § 18-1-202, C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 8B). But, the constitutional and statutory provisions governing venue are solely for the benefit of the defendant and may be waived.”
People v. Ray, 109 P.3d 996 (Colo. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 6× “Section 18-1-202 provides in pertinent part: (1) Except as otherwise provided by law, criminal actions shall be tried in the county where the offense was committed, or in any other county where an act in furtherance of the offense occurred.”
People v. Bobo, 897 P.2d 909 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 19× “Section 18-1-202, C.R.S. (1986 Repl. Vol.”
People v. Freeman, 668 P.2d 1371 (Colo. 1983). · cites it 3× “The defendant claims that Jefferson County was not a proper venue for trial on the murder charges relating to the death of Susan Williams because her actual kidnapping and murder took place entirely in Denver County.”
People v. Brown, 70 P.3d 489 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 5× “Section 18-1-202(11), C.R.S.2001, provides in pertinent part: Proof of the county in which the offense occurred or which county is the proper place for trial pursuant to this section shall mot constitute an element of any offense and need not be proven by the prosecution *494 at…”
People v. Sharp, 143 P.3d 1047 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 4× “Furthermore, Colorado's criminal venue statute, § 18-1-202(11), C.R.S.2005, provides: *1054 Proof of the county in which the offense occurred or which county is the proper place for trial pursuant to this section shall not constitute an element of any offense and need not be…”
Show all 37 citing cases →
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-202(1) — 16 cases
People v. Cortez, 737 P.2d 810 (Colo. 1987). “(1986): When multiple crimes are based upon the same act or series of acts arising from the same criminal episode and are committed in several counties, the offender may be tried in any county in which any one of the individual crimes could have been tried.”
People v. Freeman, 668 P.2d 1371 (Colo. 1983). “The defendant claims that Jefferson County was not a proper venue for trial on the murder charges relating to the death of Susan Williams because her actual kidnapping and murder took place entirely in Denver County.”
Wafai v. People, 750 P.2d 37 (Colo. 1988).
People v. Ray, 109 P.3d 996 (Colo. Ct. App. 2004). “Section 18-1-202 provides in pertinent part: (1) Except as otherwise provided by law, criminal actions shall be tried in the county where the offense was committed, or in any other county where an act in furtherance of the offense occurred.”
People v. Valdez, 928 P.2d 1387 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-202(11) — 15 cases
People v. Lewis, 433 P.3d 70 (Colo. Ct. App. 2017). “" The instruction's language was taken nearly verbatim from section 18-1-202(11), C.R.S. 2017, and the court noted that, under that statute, any issues pertaining to the proper venue for trial had to be raised before trial or they were waived.”
Mosley v. People, 2017 CO 20 (Colo. 2017). “ional circumstances of the case and the court enters specific findings with respect to the justification; (h) The period of delay between the new date set for trial following the expiration of the time periods excluded by paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), and (f) of this subsection…”
People v. Brown, 70 P.3d 489 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002). “Section 18-1-202(11), C.R.S.2001, provides in pertinent part: Proof of the county in which the offense occurred or which county is the proper place for trial pursuant to this section shall mot constitute an element of any offense and need not be proven by the prosecution *494 at…”
People v. Reed, 132 P.3d 347 (Colo. 2006). “Because the district court failed to determine, however, whether the severed counts were also triable, within the meaning of section 18-1-202, in Arapahoe County, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.”
People v. Sharp, 143 P.3d 1047 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006). “Furthermore, Colorado's criminal venue statute, § 18-1-202(11), C.R.S.2005, provides: *1054 Proof of the county in which the offense occurred or which county is the proper place for trial pursuant to this section shall not constitute an element of any offense and need not be…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-202(2) — 1 case
People v. Bobo, 897 P.2d 909 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995). “Section 18-1-202, C.R.S. (1986 Repl. Vol.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-202(4) — 4 cases
People v. Bobo, 897 P.2d 909 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995). “Section 18-1-202, C.R.S. (1986 Repl. Vol.”
People v. Cortez, 737 P.2d 810 (Colo. 1987). “(1986): When multiple crimes are based upon the same act or series of acts arising from the same criminal episode and are committed in several counties, the offender may be tried in any county in which any one of the individual crimes could have been tried.”
People v. Martinez, 543 P.2d 1290 (Colo. Ct. App. 1975).
People v. Donahue, 578 P.2d 671 (Colo. Ct. App. 1978).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-202(5) — 1 case
People v. Bobo, 897 P.2d 909 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995). “Section 18-1-202, C.R.S. (1986 Repl. Vol.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-202(7) — 7 cases
People v. Cortez, 737 P.2d 810 (Colo. 1987). “(1986): When multiple crimes are based upon the same act or series of acts arising from the same criminal episode and are committed in several counties, the offender may be tried in any county in which any one of the individual crimes could have been tried.”
People v. Taylor, 732 P.2d 1172 (Colo. 1987). “” While there can be no question that under section 18-1-202 an offense is committed in that county where the causative criminal conduct takes place or the proscribed result occurs, see Clax-ton v.”
People v. Joseph, 920 P.2d 850 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995). “II, § 16; § 18-1-202, C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 8B). But, the constitutional and statutory provisions governing venue are solely for the benefit of the defendant and may be waived.”
v. Rojas, 2019 CO 86 (Colo. 2019). “Separate References ¶25 Lastly, Rojas directs us to section 18-1-202(7), C.R.S. (2019), to support her argument that the legislature intended to create a separate crime.”
People v. Rice, 579 P.2d 647 (Colo. Ct. App. 1978).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-202(7)(a) — 2 cases
People v. Richardson, 181 P.3d 340 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007).
People v. Rojas, 2018 COA 20 (Colo. Ct. App. 2018).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-202(7)(b) — 1 case
v. Rojas, 2019 CO 86 (Colo. 2019). “Separate References ¶25 Lastly, Rojas directs us to section 18-1-202(7), C.R.S. (2019), to support her argument that the legislature intended to create a separate crime.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-202(7)(b)(II)(A) — 1 case
v. Rojas, 2019 CO 86 (Colo. 2019). “Separate References ¶25 Lastly, Rojas directs us to section 18-1-202(7), C.R.S. (2019), to support her argument that the legislature intended to create a separate crime.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-202(7)(b)(II)(D) — 1 case
v. Rojas, 2019 CO 86 (Colo. 2019). “Separate References ¶25 Lastly, Rojas directs us to section 18-1-202(7), C.R.S. (2019), to support her argument that the legislature intended to create a separate crime.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-202(7)(b)(II)(Q) — 1 case
v. Rojas, 2019 CO 86 (Colo. 2019). “Separate References ¶25 Lastly, Rojas directs us to section 18-1-202(7), C.R.S. (2019), to support her argument that the legislature intended to create a separate crime.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-202(7)(b)(II)(T) — 1 case
People v. Rojas, 2018 COA 20 (Colo. Ct. App. 2018).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-202(7)(b)(II)(U) — 1 case
v. Rojas, 2019 CO 86 (Colo. 2019). “Separate References ¶25 Lastly, Rojas directs us to section 18-1-202(7), C.R.S. (2019), to support her argument that the legislature intended to create a separate crime.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-202(9) — 1 case
People v. Ray, 109 P.3d 996 (Colo. Ct. App. 2004). “Section 18-1-202 provides in pertinent part: (1) Except as otherwise provided by law, criminal actions shall be tried in the county where the offense was committed, or in any other county where an act in furtherance of the offense occurred.”
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.