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

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-303 (2026)

Second trial barred by prosecution in another jurisdiction

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

(1) If conduct constitutes an offense within the concurrent jurisdiction of this state and of the United States, or another state, or of a municipality, a prosecution in any other of these jurisdictions is a bar to a subsequent prosecution in this state under either of the following circumstances: (a) The first prosecution resulted in a conviction or an acquittal as defined in section 18- 1-301 (1)(a) and (1)(c), and the subsequent prosecution is based on the same conduct, unless: (I) The offense for which the defendant was formerly convicted or acquitted requires proof of a fact not required by the offense for which he is subsequently prosecuted and the law defining each of the offenses is intended to prevent a substantially different harm or evil; or (II) The second offense was not consummated when the former trial began. (b) The former prosecution was terminated by an acquittal or by a final order or judgment for the defendant that has not been set aside, reversed, or vacated and that necessarily required a determination inconsistent with a fact that must be established for conviction of the offense for which the defendant is subsequently prosecuted.

Source: L. 71: R&RE, p. 397, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 40-1-403.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1977–2021 · leading case: v. Garcia, 2021 COA 65 (Colo. Ct. App. 2021).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
v. Garcia, 2021 COA 65 (Colo. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 35× “Garcia — Constitutional Law — Fifth Amendment — Double Jeopardy; Criminal Law — Second Trial Barred by Prosecution in Another Jurisdiction This case is the first to conclude that section 18-1-303, C.R.S. 2020 does not apply to prior prosecutions by foreign countries,…”
People v. Wentling, 2015 COA 172 (Colo. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 58× “¶5       Wentling raises four issues on appeal: (1) the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to convict him of first degree criminal trespass with intent to commit motor vehicle theft; (2) his Colorado prosecution violated section 18-1-303, C.R.S. 2015, because…”
People v. Morgan, 785 P.2d 1294 (Colo. 1990). · cites it 40× “1 The People seek review of the trial court’s ruling that Morgan’s conviction in Navajo District Court for receiving *1295 stolen property bars prosecution on Colorado charges of theft and conspiracy because of the double jeopardy statute, § 18-1-303, 8B C.R.S. (1986), where all…”
Chatfield v. Colorado Court of Appeals, 775 P.2d 1168 (Colo. 1989). · cites it 34× “In dictum, the court also noted that Chatfield’s claim was without merit since a federal incompetency determination would not preclude a contrary determination in a state proceeding.”
People v. Gladney, 250 P.3d 762 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 6× “Double Jeopardy Defendant contends that, because a federal jury found him guilty, by special verdict, of the victim's murder, the subsequent state prosecution for the same conduct violated his constitutional right to be free from double jeopardy as extended and codified in…”
People v. Hines, 572 P.2d 467 (Colo. 1977). · cites it 3× “” The appellant’s reliance on this provision is not well-founded. Section 18-1-302 must be read to deal with multiple prosecutions in the same jurisdiction, i.”
People v. Sandreschi, 849 P.2d 873 (Colo. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 11× “Citing § 18-1-303, C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 8B), the Fifth Amendment, and Colo.”
Jeffrey v. Dist. Court In & For the Eighth Jud. Dist., 626 P.2d 631 (Colo. 1981). · cites it 3× “ollowing circumstances: (a) The former prosecution resulted in an acquittal or a conviction as defined in section 18-l-301(l)(a) and (l)(c), and the subsequent prosecution is for: * * * * * * (II) The same conduct, unless the offense of which the defendant was formerly convicted…”
State v. Rogers, 566 P.2d 1142 (N.M. 1977). · cites it 2× “Penal Code § 656 (West 1970); Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-303 (1974); Ill. Rev.”
People v. Talarico, 560 P.2d 90 (Colo. 1977). · cites it 3× “Section 18-1-303(1)(a), C.R.S. 1973, provides that an acquittal or conviction of municipal charges based on the same conduct will act as a bar to state charges unless: “The offense for which the defendant was formerly convicted or acquitted requires proof of a fact not required…”
State v. Goodman, 455 A.2d 475 (N.J. 1983). · cites it 2× “1982)); Colorado ( Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-303 (1973)); Delaware ( Del.”
People v. Wright, 742 P.2d 316 (Colo. 1987). · cites it 2× “For example, section 18-1-303(1), 8A C.R.S. (1986), which is intended to codify the federal and state constitutional prohibitions against placing an accused in jeopardy twice for the same offense, U.”
Show all 17 citing cases →
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-303(1) — 2 cases
People v. Wentling, 2015 COA 172 (Colo. Ct. App. 2015). “¶5       Wentling raises four issues on appeal: (1) the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to convict him of first degree criminal trespass with intent to commit motor vehicle theft; (2) his Colorado prosecution violated section 18-1-303, C.R.S. 2015, because…”
People v. Wright, 742 P.2d 316 (Colo. 1987). “For example, section 18-1-303(1), 8A C.R.S. (1986), which is intended to codify the federal and state constitutional prohibitions against placing an accused in jeopardy twice for the same offense, U.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-303(1)(a) — 3 cases
People v. Talarico, 560 P.2d 90 (Colo. 1977). “Section 18-1-303(1)(a), C.R.S. 1973, provides that an acquittal or conviction of municipal charges based on the same conduct will act as a bar to state charges unless: “The offense for which the defendant was formerly convicted or acquitted requires proof of a fact not required…”
People v. Wentling, 2015 COA 172 (Colo. Ct. App. 2015). “¶5       Wentling raises four issues on appeal: (1) the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to convict him of first degree criminal trespass with intent to commit motor vehicle theft; (2) his Colorado prosecution violated section 18-1-303, C.R.S. 2015, because…”
People v. Giem, 2015 COA 176 (Colo. Ct. App. 2015).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-303(1)(a)(1) — 1 case
People v. Wentling, 2015 COA 172 (Colo. Ct. App. 2015). “¶5       Wentling raises four issues on appeal: (1) the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to convict him of first degree criminal trespass with intent to commit motor vehicle theft; (2) his Colorado prosecution violated section 18-1-303, C.R.S. 2015, because…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-303(1)(a)(I) — 3 cases
People v. Wentling, 2015 COA 172 (Colo. Ct. App. 2015). “¶5       Wentling raises four issues on appeal: (1) the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to convict him of first degree criminal trespass with intent to commit motor vehicle theft; (2) his Colorado prosecution violated section 18-1-303, C.R.S. 2015, because…”
People v. Rogers, 742 P.2d 912 (Colo. 1987).
People v. Giem, 2015 COA 176 (Colo. Ct. App. 2015).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-303(l)(b) — 1 case
Chatfield v. Colorado Court of Appeals, 775 P.2d 1168 (Colo. 1989). “In dictum, the court also noted that Chatfield’s claim was without merit since a federal incompetency determination would not preclude a contrary determination in a state proceeding.”
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.