(1) Conspiracy to commit a class 1 felony is a class 2 felony; conspiracy to commit a class 2 felony is a class 3 felony; conspiracy to commit a class 3 felony is a class 4 felony; conspiracy to commit a class 4 felony is a class 5 felony; conspiracy to commit a class 5 or 6 felony is a class 6 felony.
(2) A person may not be convicted of conspiracy to commit an offense if he is acquitted of the offense which is the object of the conspiracy where the sole evidence of conspiracy is the evidence establishing the commission of the offense which is the object of the conspiracy.
(3) If the particular conduct charged to constitute a criminal conspiracy is so inherently unlikely to result or culminate in the commission of a crime that neither that conduct nor the offender presents a public danger warranting the grading of the offense under this section, the court may enter judgment and impose sentence for a crime of a lesser class or, in extreme cases, may dismiss the prosecution.
(4) Conspiracy to commit a class 1 misdemeanor or class 2 misdemeanor is a class 2 misdemeanor.
(5) Repealed.
(6) Conspiracy to commit a petty offense is a crime of the same class as the offense itself.
(7) (a) Except as otherwise provided by law, conspiracy to commit a level 1 drug felony is a level 2 drug felony; conspiracy to commit a level 2 drug felony is a level 3 drug felony; conspiracy to commit a level 3 drug felony is a level 4 drug felony; and conspiracy to commit a level 4 drug felony is a level 4 drug felony.
(b) Except as otherwise provided by law, conspiracy to commit a level 1 drug misdemeanor is a level 2 drug misdemeanor; and conspiracy to commit a level 2 drug misdemeanor is a level 2 drug misdemeanor.
Source: L. 71: R&RE, p. 416, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 40-2-206. L. 75: (1) amended and (4) to (6) added, p. 617, § 4, effective July 21. L. 89, 1st Ex. Sess.: (1) amended, p. 22, § 13, effective July 1. L. 2013: (7) added, (SB 13-250), ch. 333, p. 1942, § 67, effective October 1. L. 2014: (7)(a) amended, (SB 14-163), ch. 391, p. 1975, § 15, effective July 1. L. 2021: (4) amended, (SB 21-271), ch. 462, p. 3172, § 192, effective March 1, 2022; (5)(b) added by revision, (SB 21-271), ch. 462, pp. 3172, 3331, §§ 192, 803.
Editor's note: Subsection (5)(b) provided for the repeal of subsection (5), effective March 1, 2022. (See L. 2021, pp. 3172, 3331.)
PART 3
CRIMINAL SOLICITATION
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
32
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1975–2026 · leading case:
Watkins v. People, 655 P.2d 834 (Colo. 1982).
Watkins v. People, 655 P.2d 834 (Colo. 1982).
· cites it 6× “The crime of conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery also carried a maximum penalty exceeding five years, section 18-2-206(1), C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl.”
People v. Randell, 297 P.3d 989 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 4× “2d 232, 234 (1966), and codified at section 18-2-206(@2), C.R.S. 2011, Because the jury heard evidence of a conspiracy separate and distinct from the evidence supporting the substantive elements of computer crime, we conclude that the verdicts are consistent.”
People v. Hoffman, 655 P.2d 393 (Colo. 1982).
· cites it 12× “2d 232 (1966), now codified in section 18-2-206(2), C.R.S.1973, to reach its conclusion.”
People v. Frye, 898 P.2d 559 (Colo. 1995).
· cites it 3× “We believe that the rule announced in Robles , prohibiting verdicts where a defendant is convicted of conspiring to commit a substantive offense and acquitted of that substantive offense, where the same evidence relied on to establish the conspiracy is the evidence that was…”
People v. Medina, 72 P.3d 405 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 3× “Section 18-2-206, C.R.S8.2002. Here, defendant was convicted of conspiracy to commit an aggravated robbery and also as a complicitor in the attempted aggravated robbery.”
People v. McGlotten, 166 P.3d 182 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 3× “Relying on § 18-2-206(2), C.R.S.2006, McGlotten also argues that he cannot be convicted of conspiring to murder A.”
People v. Hartkemeyer, 843 P.2d 92 (Colo. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 3× “Section 18-2-206, C.R.S. (1986 Repl. Vol.”
People v. Zweygardt, 298 P.3d 1018 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 2× “¶37 Convictions will generally be upheld irrespective of their rational incompatibility with acquittals, provided sufficient evidence supports each guilty verdict.”
People v. McCoy, 944 P.2d 584 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 4× “Inconsistent verdicts of guilt and acquittal are not prohibited, except under the narrow terms provided in § 18-2-206(2), C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 8B).”
People v. Hood, 878 P.2d 89 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 3× “He argues that the verdicts are inconsistent because the jury acquitted him of first degree murder based upon the same evidence that it used to find him guilty of conspiracy to commit first degree murder. We do not agree.”
King v. People, 728 P.2d 1264 (Colo. 1986).
· cites it 2× “§§ 18-2-206(1) and 18-1-105(1)(a)(I), 8B C.”
People v. Albers, 582 P.2d 667 (Colo. 1978).
· cites it 3× “This rule has since been embodied in statutory form, as follows: “A person may not be convicted of conspiracy to commit an offense if he is acquitted of the offense which is the object of the conspiracy where the sole evidence of conspiracy is the evidence establishing the…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-2-206(1) — 5 cases
Watkins v. People, 655 P.2d 834 (Colo. 1982).
“The crime of conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery also carried a maximum penalty exceeding five years, section 18-2-206(1), C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl.”
King v. People, 728 P.2d 1264 (Colo. 1986).
“§§ 18-2-206(1) and 18-1-105(1)(a)(I), 8B C.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-2-206(2) — 19 cases
People v. Hoffman, 655 P.2d 393 (Colo. 1982).
“2d 232 (1966), now codified in section 18-2-206(2), C.R.S.1973, to reach its conclusion.”
People v. Frye, 898 P.2d 559 (Colo. 1995).
“We believe that the rule announced in Robles , prohibiting verdicts where a defendant is convicted of conspiring to commit a substantive offense and acquitted of that substantive offense, where the same evidence relied on to establish the conspiracy is the evidence that was…”
People v. Randell, 297 P.3d 989 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012).
“2d 232, 234 (1966), and codified at section 18-2-206(@2), C.R.S. 2011, Because the jury heard evidence of a conspiracy separate and distinct from the evidence supporting the substantive elements of computer crime, we conclude that the verdicts are consistent.”
People v. McGlotten, 166 P.3d 182 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007).
“Relying on § 18-2-206(2), C.R.S.2006, McGlotten also argues that he cannot be convicted of conspiring to murder A.”
People v. Zweygardt, 298 P.3d 1018 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012).
“¶37 Convictions will generally be upheld irrespective of their rational incompatibility with acquittals, provided sufficient evidence supports each guilty verdict.”
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.