Colo. Rev. Stat. » Title 18
Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-3-101 (2026)

Definition of terms

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

As used in this part 1, unless the context otherwise requires:

(1) "Homicide" means the killing of a person by another.

(2) "Person", when referring to the victim of a homicide, means a human being who had been born and was alive at the time of the homicidal act.

(2.5) One in a "position of trust" includes, but is not limited to, any person who is a parent or acting in the place of a parent and charged with any of a parent's rights, duties, or responsibilities concerning a child, including a guardian or someone otherwise responsible for the general supervision of a child's welfare, or a person who is charged with any duty or responsibility for the health, education, welfare, or supervision of a child, including foster care, child care, family care, or institutional care, either independently or through another, no matter how brief, at the time of an unlawful act.

(3) The term "after deliberation" means not only intentionally but also that the decision to commit the act has been made after the exercise of reflection and judgment concerning the act. An act committed after deliberation is never one which has been committed in a hasty or impulsive manner.

Source: L. 71: R&RE, p. 417, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 40-3-101. L. 74: (1)(c) R&RE, p. 251, § 1, effective January 1, 1975. L. 95: (2.5) added, p. 1221, § 1, effective July 1.

Cross references: For the statutory provision that declares that the withholding or withdrawal of life-sustaining procedures does not constitute suicide or homicide, see § 15-18- 111; for the effect of homicide on probate matters, see § 15-11-803.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 49 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1975–2026 · leading case: People v. Lage, 232 P.3d 138 (Colo. Ct. App. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Lage, 232 P.3d 138 (Colo. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 52× “The Homicide Counts As to the homicide charges, the trial court relied on section 18-3-101, C.R.S.2008, which states, in pertinent part: *140 As used in this part 1 [homicide and related offenses, §§ 18-3-101 to -107], unless the context otherwise requires: (1) "Homicide" means…”
Martinez v. People, 2015 CO 16 (Colo. 2015). · cites it 4× “" See § 18-3-101(3), C.R.S. (2014). It informed the jury that " 'after deliberation' means not only intentionally but also that the decision to commit the act has been made after the exercise of reflection and judgment concerning the act.”
Key v. People, 715 P.2d 319 (Colo. 1986). · cites it 16× “" The term "after deliberation" is defined in section 18-3-101(3), 8 C.R.S. (1978), to mean "not only intentionally but also that the decision to commit the act has been made after the exercise of reflection and judgment concerning the act.”
v. Jones, 2020 CO 45 (Colo. 2020). · cites it 7× “See § 18-3-101(2), C.R.S. (2019) (“‘Person’, when referring to the victim of a homicide, means a human being who had been born and was alive at the time of the homicidal act.”
People v. Cevallos-Acosta, 140 P.3d 116 (Colo. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 3× “” Section 18-3-101(3), C.R.S.2005. Here, the prosecutor made several statements during voir dire and one statement during summation defining “after deliberation” as “one thought following another.”
People v. Harlan, 8 P.3d 448 (Colo. 2000). · cites it 6× “In our view, section 18-3-101(8), 6 C.R.S. (1999), establishes that "after deliberation" is part of the specific intent element of first degree murder.”
v. Dominguez-Castor, 2020 COA 1 (Colo. Ct. App. 2020). “” § 18-3-101(3), C.R.S. 2019. ¶ 88 Using an analogy to explain the concept of deliberation can be problematic, especially where it might trivialize the reflection and judgment necessary to commit first degree murder.”
People v. Marko, 2015 COA 139 (Colo. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “¶215        “‘[A]fter deliberation’ means not only intentionally but also that the decision to commit the act has been made after the exercise of reflection and judgment concerning the act.”
People v. Grant, 174 P.3d 798 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “" See § 18-3-101(8), C.R.S.2006. Further, the prosecutor made only one brief reference in argument to the improper definition of "after deliberation.”
People v. Lewis, 676 P.2d 682 (Colo. 1984). · cites it 6× “The term "after deliberation" is defined in section 18-3-101(3), C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl.”
People v. Miller, 113 P.3d 743 (Colo. 2005). “” § 18-3-101(3). Because the statute indicates that the mental state of “after deliberation” includes intent, the mental state for first-degree murder is distinguished by the requirement of “reflection and judgment.”
People v. Bartowsheski, 661 P.2d 235 (Colo. 1983). · cites it 3× “” Section 18-3-101(3), C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl.”
Show all 49 citing cases →
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-3-101(1) — 2 cases
People v. Lage, 232 P.3d 138 (Colo. Ct. App. 2009). “The Homicide Counts As to the homicide charges, the trial court relied on section 18-3-101, C.R.S.2008, which states, in pertinent part: *140 As used in this part 1 [homicide and related offenses, §§ 18-3-101 to -107], unless the context otherwise requires: (1) "Homicide" means…”
Wallin v. McCabe, 293 P.3d 81 (Colo. Ct. App. 2011).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-3-101(2) — 2 cases
People v. Lage, 232 P.3d 138 (Colo. Ct. App. 2009). “The Homicide Counts As to the homicide charges, the trial court relied on section 18-3-101, C.R.S.2008, which states, in pertinent part: *140 As used in this part 1 [homicide and related offenses, §§ 18-3-101 to -107], unless the context otherwise requires: (1) "Homicide" means…”
v. Jones, 2020 CO 45 (Colo. 2020). “See § 18-3-101(2), C.R.S. (2019) (“‘Person’, when referring to the victim of a homicide, means a human being who had been born and was alive at the time of the homicidal act.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-3-101(3) — 35 cases
Key v. People, 715 P.2d 319 (Colo. 1986). “" The term "after deliberation" is defined in section 18-3-101(3), 8 C.R.S. (1978), to mean "not only intentionally but also that the decision to commit the act has been made after the exercise of reflection and judgment concerning the act.”
People v. Cevallos-Acosta, 140 P.3d 116 (Colo. Ct. App. 2005). “” Section 18-3-101(3), C.R.S.2005. Here, the prosecutor made several statements during voir dire and one statement during summation defining “after deliberation” as “one thought following another.”
Martinez v. People, 2015 CO 16 (Colo. 2015). “" See § 18-3-101(3), C.R.S. (2014). It informed the jury that " 'after deliberation' means not only intentionally but also that the decision to commit the act has been made after the exercise of reflection and judgment concerning the act.”
v. Dominguez-Castor, 2020 COA 1 (Colo. Ct. App. 2020). “” § 18-3-101(3), C.R.S. 2019. ¶ 88 Using an analogy to explain the concept of deliberation can be problematic, especially where it might trivialize the reflection and judgment necessary to commit first degree murder.”
People v. Marko, 2015 COA 139 (Colo. Ct. App. 2015). “¶215        “‘[A]fter deliberation’ means not only intentionally but also that the decision to commit the act has been made after the exercise of reflection and judgment concerning the act.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-3-101(8) — 3 cases
Martinez v. People, 2015 CO 16 (Colo. 2015). “" See § 18-3-101(3), C.R.S. (2014). It informed the jury that " 'after deliberation' means not only intentionally but also that the decision to commit the act has been made after the exercise of reflection and judgment concerning the act.”
People v. Harlan, 8 P.3d 448 (Colo. 2000). “In our view, section 18-3-101(8), 6 C.R.S. (1999), establishes that "after deliberation" is part of the specific intent element of first degree murder.”
People v. Grant, 174 P.3d 798 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007). “" See § 18-3-101(8), C.R.S.2006. Further, the prosecutor made only one brief reference in argument to the improper definition of "after deliberation.”
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.