(1) Renunciation and abandonment are not voluntary and complete so as to be a defense to prosecution under this article if they are motivated in whole or in part by:
(a) A belief that a circumstance exists which increases the probability of detection or apprehension of the defendant or another or which makes more difficult the consummation of the crime; or
(b) A decision to postpone the crime until another time or to substitute another victim or another but similar objective.
Source: L. 71: R&RE, p. 417, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 40-2-401.
ARTICLE 3 Offenses Against the Person Editor's note: This title was repealed and reenacted in 1971. For historical information concerning the repeal and reenactment, see the editor's note following the title heading.
PART 1
HOMICIDE AND RELATED OFFENSES
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
4
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case:
O'Shaughnessy v. People, 2012 CO 9, 269 P.3d 1233.
O'Shaughnessy v. People, 2012 CO 9, 269 P.3d 1233.
· cites it 3× “Section 18-2-401, C.R.S. (2011), provides: (1) Renunciation and abandonment are not voluntary and complete so as to be a defense to prosecution under this article if they are motivated in whole or in part by: (a) A belief that a circumstance exists which increases the…”
People v. Traubert, 625 P.2d 991 (Colo. 1981).
· cites it 5× “See section 18-2-101(3) and section 18-2-401, C.R.S. 1973 (1978 Repl.”
People v. Johnson, 585 P.2d 306 (Colo. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 2× “We disagree with the People's contention that, because defendant was proceeding in the general direction of the house when he was apprehended, the defense of abandonment was unavailable to him under § 18-2-401(1), C.R.S.1973. Whether defendant was *308 only temporarily…”
Peo v. Simpson, No. 22CA0465 (Colo. Ct. App. Apr. 16, 2026).
· cites it 2× “3, at 53 (1986)); see also § 18-2-401(1)(a), C.R.S. 2025 (prohibiting the abandonment defense if it is “motivated in whole or in part by” circumstances that “make[] more difficult the consummation of the crime”).”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-2-401(1): 1 case
People v. Johnson, 585 P.2d 306 (Colo. Ct. App. 1978).
“We disagree with the People's contention that, because defendant was proceeding in the general direction of the house when he was apprehended, the defense of abandonment was unavailable to him under § 18-2-401(1), C.R.S.1973. Whether defendant was *308 only temporarily…”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-2-401(1)(a): 1 case
Peo v. Simpson, No. 22CA0465 (Colo. Ct. App. Apr. 16, 2026).
“3, at 53 (1986)); see also § 18-2-401(1)(a), C.R.S. 2025 (prohibiting the abandonment defense if it is “motivated in whole or in part by” circumstances that “make[] more difficult the consummation of the crime”).”
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.