Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-503.5 (2026)

Principles of criminal culpability

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) If the criminality of conduct depends on a child being younger than eighteen years of age and the child was in fact at least fifteen years of age, it shall be an affirmative defense that the defendant reasonably believed the child to be eighteen years of age or older. This affirmative defense shall not be available if the criminality of conduct depends on the defendant being in a position of trust. (2) If the criminality of conduct depends on a child's being younger than eighteen years of age and the child was in fact younger than fifteen years of age, there shall be no defense that the defendant reasonably believed the child was eighteen years of age or older. (3) If the criminality of conduct depends on a child being younger than fifteen years of age, it shall be no defense that the defendant did not know the child's age or that the defendant reasonably believed the child to be fifteen years of age or older.

Source: L. 2001: Entire section added, p. 859, § 6, effective July 1. L. 2007: (1) amended, p. 1687, § 4, effective July 1.

Cross references: For affirmative defenses generally, see §§ 18-1-407, 18-1-710, and 18-1-805.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2006–2025 · leading case: v. Maloy, 2020 COA 71 (Colo. Ct. App. 2020).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

v. Maloy, 2020 COA 71 (Colo. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 19× “7 Section 18-1-503.5 was added in 2001. Ch.”

Peo v. Houser, 2020 COA 128 (Colo. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 9× “Houser filed a pretrial notice of intent to assert an affirmative defense under section 18-1-503.5, C.R.S. 2019, that Houser had reasonably believed A.”

People v. Houser, 337 P.3d 1238 (Colo. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 7× “2012, 1 prevented defendant from offering a reasonable belief defense, notwithstanding broad language in section 18-1-503.5(1), C.R.S8.2012, 2 permitting such a defense.”

United States v. Wilson, 66 M.J. 39 (C.A.A.F. 2008). · cites it 2× “§ 5-14 - 102 (2007); Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 18-1-503.5 (West 2007); 720 Ill.”

People v. Graybeal, 155 P.3d 614 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 4× “Additionally, under § 18-1-503.5(1), C.R.S.2006, where the criminality of conduct depends on a child's being younger than eighteen years of age and the child was in fact at least fifteen years of age, it is an affirmative defense that the defendant reasonably believed the child…”

People v. Grizzle, 140 P.3d 224 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 3× “Section 18-1-503.5(3), C.R.S.2005 (“[i]f the criminality of conduct depends on a child being younger than fifteen years of age, it shall be no defense that the defendant did not know the child’s age or that the defendant reasonably believed the child to be fifteen years of age…”

Fleming, Mark Alexander, 455 S.W.3d 577 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). “§ 5 — 14— 102(b), (c), (d) (age 14 if actor is at least age 20); Colo.Rev.Stat. § 18-1-503.5 (age 15); 720 III.”

Peo v. Houser, 2020 COA 76 (Colo. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 9× “Houser filed a pretrial notice of intent to assert an affirmative defense under section 18-1-503.5, C.R.S. 2019, that Houser had reasonably believed A.”

Peo v. Clark (Colo. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 4× “See § 18-1-503.5, C.R.S. 2024. We see no reason why the mere belief that P.”

People v. Sparks, 2018 COA 1 (2018). “§ 18-1-503.5(3), C.R.S. 2017. ¶8 We read these statutes together to give effect to the entire statutory scheme and give consistent and sensible effect to all its parts.”

Peo v. Burnett (Colo. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “See § 18-1-503.5(1), C.R.S. 2024. ¶6 The jury convicted Burnett on both charges, and the district court sentenced him to five years of sex offender intensive supervised probation and ninety days in jail.”

Fleming, Mark Alexander (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). “§ 5-14-102 (b), (c), (d) (age 14 if actor is at least age 20); Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-503.5 (age 15); 720 Ill.”

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-503.5(1) — 6 cases

v. Maloy, 2020 COA 71 (Colo. Ct. App. 2020). “7 Section 18-1-503.5 was added in 2001. Ch.”

Peo v. Houser, 2020 COA 128 (Colo. Ct. App. 2020). “Houser filed a pretrial notice of intent to assert an affirmative defense under section 18-1-503.5, C.R.S. 2019, that Houser had reasonably believed A.”

People v. Houser, 337 P.3d 1238 (Colo. Ct. App. 2013). “2012, 1 prevented defendant from offering a reasonable belief defense, notwithstanding broad language in section 18-1-503.5(1), C.R.S8.2012, 2 permitting such a defense.”

People v. Graybeal, 155 P.3d 614 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007). “Additionally, under § 18-1-503.5(1), C.R.S.2006, where the criminality of conduct depends on a child's being younger than eighteen years of age and the child was in fact at least fifteen years of age, it is an affirmative defense that the defendant reasonably believed the child…”

Peo v. Houser, 2020 COA 76 (Colo. Ct. App. 2020). “Houser filed a pretrial notice of intent to assert an affirmative defense under section 18-1-503.5, C.R.S. 2019, that Houser had reasonably believed A.”

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-503.5(2) — 1 case

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-503.5(3) — 2 cases

People v. Grizzle, 140 P.3d 224 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006). “Section 18-1-503.5(3), C.R.S.2005 (“[i]f the criminality of conduct depends on a child being younger than fifteen years of age, it shall be no defense that the defendant did not know the child’s age or that the defendant reasonably believed the child to be fifteen years of age…”

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.