A person is justified in using
reasonable and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he
reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he reasonably believes to be an attempt by the
other person to commit theft, criminal mischief, or criminal tampering involving property, but he
may use deadly physical force under these circumstances only in defense of himself or another
as described in section 18-1-704.
Source: L. 71: R&RE, p. 409, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 40-1-806.
Cross references: For theft, see part 4 of article 4 of this title 18; for criminal mischief,
see § 18-4-501; for criminal tampering, see §§ 18-4-505 and 18-4-506.
18-1-706.5. Justification and exemption from liability when rendering emergency
assistance to an at-risk person or animal in a locked vehicle. A person is justified and exempt
from criminal liability for criminal mischief, criminal trespass, or criminal tampering involving
property if such action occurred when he or she rendered emergency assistance to an at-risk
person or animal in a locked vehicle, provided the person rendering assistance acted in
accordance with the provisions of section 13-21-108.4.
Source: L. 2017: Entire section added, (HB 17-1179), ch. 127, p. 436, § 2, effective
August 9.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
11
cases (
5 in the last 5 years), 1986–2026 · leading case:
People v. Trujillo, 83 P.3d 642 (Colo. 2004).
People v. Trujillo, 83 P.3d 642 (Colo. 2004).
“5 (use of deadly force against an intruder); § 18-1-705 (use of physical force in defense of premises); § 18-1-706 (use of physical force in defense of property).”
People v. McNeese, 892 P.2d 304 (Colo. 1995).
· cites it 2× “(1986); § 18-1-706, 8B C.R.S. (1986). The "make-my-day" statute lies in the criminal code along side these statutes.”
People v. Oslund, 292 P.3d 1025 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 3× “Section 18-1-706, C.R.S.2011, provides: A person is justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he reasonably believes to be an attempt by the other person to…”
People v. Goedecke, 730 P.2d 900 (Colo. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 2× “Defense of property is set forth in § 18-1-706, C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 8B), which provides: “A person is justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he reasonably…”
Mary Ann Moreno, Plaintiff: v. Circle K Stores, Inc. Defendant:, 2026 CO 46 (Colo. 2026).
· cites it 14× “[1] Similarly, section 18-1-706, C.R.S. (2025), creates a defense to criminal liability for using force in defense of property "to prevent what [an individual] reasonably believes to be an attempt by the other person to commit theft, criminal mischief, or criminal tampering…”
Wise v. Hansen (D. Colo. 2020).
· cites it 2× “See also Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-706 (2019). ii. Colorado Court of Appeals’ decision The Colorado Court of Appeals applied the Strickland standard and rejected the claim on the following grounds: “[W]e conclude that defendant’s allegations, if true, were not sufficient to…”
Peo v. Russell (Colo. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 2× “2025; and (3) defense of property, § 18-1-706, C.R.S. 2025. But for her conduct to be legally justified, Russell must have reasonably believed that her use of force was necessary to prevent Keyes from (1) using unlawful physical force on Russell or Floyd, § 18-1-704(1); (2)…”
Peo v. Barnes (Colo. Ct. App. 2026).
· cites it 2× “See § 18-1-706, C.R.S. 2025. Based on this evidence, a jury could reasonably have found that Barnes used force to defend himself from what he reasonably believed to be the use or imminent use of 11 unlawful force by Thomas, and that the degree of force he used was reasonably…”
State Of Washington, V Steven Brian Yelovich (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).
“6 See Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-706 (allowing reasonable force when “necessary to prevent what [the defendant] reasonably believes to be an attempt by the other person to commit theft”); 11 Del.”
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.