(1) Except as to bona fide acts of persons authorized by law to investigate and detect the commission of offenses by others, a person is guilty of criminal solicitation if he or she commands, induces, entreats, or otherwise attempts to persuade another person, or offers his or her services or another's services to a third person, to commit a felony, whether as principal or accomplice, with intent to promote or facilitate the commission of that crime, and under circumstances strongly corroborative of that intent.
(2) It is a defense to a prosecution under this section that, if the criminal object were achieved, the defendant would be the sole victim of the offense or the offense is so defined that his conduct would be inevitably incident to its commission or he otherwise would not be guilty under the statute defining the offense or under section 18-1-603 dealing with complicity.
(3) It is no defense to a prosecution under this section that the person solicited could not be guilty of the offense because of lack of responsibility or culpability, or other incapacity.
(4) It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution under this section that the defendant, after soliciting another person to commit a felony, persuaded him not to do so or otherwise prevented the commission of the felony, under circumstances manifesting a complete and voluntary renunciation of the defendant's criminal intent.
(5) Criminal solicitation is subject to the penalties provided for criminal attempt in section 18-2-101.
Source: L. 71: R&RE, p. 417, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 40-2-301. L. 98: (1) amended, p. 1443, § 29, effective July 1.
Cross references: For affirmative defenses generally, see §§ 18-1-407, 18-1-710, and 18-1-805.
PART 4
RENUNCIATION AND ABANDONMENT
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
20
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1978–2022 · leading case:
People v. Aalbu, 696 P.2d 796 (Colo. 1985).
People v. Aalbu, 696 P.2d 796 (Colo. 1985).
· cites it 14× “The issues which he raises include the claimed unconstitutionality of the criminal solicitation statute, § 18-2-301, 8 C.R.S. (1978), the failure of the trial court to sever charges and to suppress evidence, several evidentia-ry rulings made during the trial, the failure of the…”
People v. Latsis, 578 P.2d 1055 (Colo. 1978).
· cites it 18× “Section 18-2-301, C.R.S.1973. *1057 Defendant's motion to dismiss the solicitation counts on the ground that the statute is unconstitutional for reasons of vagueness and overbreadth was granted by the court.”
Stevens v. People, 29 P.3d 305 (Colo. 2001).
· cites it 4× “(2000); and (3) solicitation to commit first-degree murder under section 18-2-301, 6 C.R.S. (2000). [2] We granted certiorari on the following issue: (1) Whether the court of appeals erred in conducting its Confrontation Clause analysis.”
People v. Douglas, 296 P.3d 234 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 3× “§ 18-2-301(1), C.R.S.2011 (emphasis added).”
People v. Yascavage, 101 P.3d 1090 (Colo. 2004).
· cites it 4× “See § 18-2-301, C.R.S. (2004); § 18-8-707, C.”
People v. Washington, 865 P.2d 145 (Colo. 1994).
· cites it 9× “The trial court found that there was no indication that the defendant had solicited the purchase and sale of crack cocaine from an undercover police officer in violation of section 18-2-301, 8B C.R.S. (1986), and that therefore the police lacked probable cause to arrest the…”
Melina v. People, 161 P.3d 635 (Colo. 2007).
· cites it 6× “(2006), provides that a person is guilty of solicitation if (1) he attempts to persuade another person to commit a felony, (2) with the intent to promote the commission of the crime, and (3) under circumstances strongly corroborative of that intent: A person is guilty of…”
People v. Shell, 148 P.3d 162 (Colo. 2006).
· cites it 3× “(2006)), or criminal solicitation (section 18-2-301, C.R.S. (2006)). Each of these unlawful activities requires some method of communication, and yet it is “well established that speech which, in its effect, is tantamount to legitimately proscribable nonexpressive conduct may…”
People v. R. V., 635 P.2d 892 (Colo. 1981).
· cites it 6× “Likewise, both criminal solicitation, section 18-2-301(1), C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl.”
People v. Jacobs, 91 P.3d 438 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 6× “Specifically, he contends that “solicit” has a technical meaning, as embodied in the general solicitation statute, § 18-2-301, C.R.S.2003, and related case law, and that the trial court should have instructed the jury on the general solicitation statute.”
Alonzi v. People, 597 P.2d 560 (Colo. 1979).
· cites it 6× “[3] The petitioner argues that this construction violates his right to equal protection because the same conductencouragementis proscribed under both the criminal solicitation statute, section 18-2-301, C.R.S.1973, and the criminal complicity statute, for which there are…”
People v. Davis, 296 P.3d 219 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 4× “115 A defendant is guilty of solicitation under section 18-2-301(1), C.R.S.2011, if he or she "(1) .”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-2-301(1) — 9 cases
People v. Douglas, 296 P.3d 234 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012).
“§ 18-2-301(1), C.R.S.2011 (emphasis added).”
Melina v. People, 161 P.3d 635 (Colo. 2007).
“(2006), provides that a person is guilty of solicitation if (1) he attempts to persuade another person to commit a felony, (2) with the intent to promote the commission of the crime, and (3) under circumstances strongly corroborative of that intent: A person is guilty of…”
People v. R. V., 635 P.2d 892 (Colo. 1981).
“Likewise, both criminal solicitation, section 18-2-301(1), C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl.”
People v. Davis, 296 P.3d 219 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012).
“115 A defendant is guilty of solicitation under section 18-2-301(1), C.R.S.2011, if he or she "(1) .”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-2-301(4) — 1 case
People v. Aalbu, 696 P.2d 796 (Colo. 1985).
“The issues which he raises include the claimed unconstitutionality of the criminal solicitation statute, § 18-2-301, 8 C.R.S. (1978), the failure of the trial court to sever charges and to suppress evidence, several evidentia-ry rulings made during the trial, the failure of the…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-2-301(5) — 3 cases
People v. Jacobs, 91 P.3d 438 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003).
“Specifically, he contends that “solicit” has a technical meaning, as embodied in the general solicitation statute, § 18-2-301, C.R.S.2003, and related case law, and that the trial court should have instructed the jury on the general solicitation statute.”
People v. Aalbu, 696 P.2d 796 (Colo. 1985).
“The issues which he raises include the claimed unconstitutionality of the criminal solicitation statute, § 18-2-301, 8 C.R.S. (1978), the failure of the trial court to sever charges and to suppress evidence, several evidentia-ry rulings made during the trial, the failure of the…”
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.