As used in this part 1, unless the context otherwise requires:
(1) "Material" means anything tangible that is capable of being used or adapted to arouse interest, whether through the medium of reading, observation, sound, or in any other manner, but does not include an actual three-dimensional obscene device.
(1.5) "Minor" means a person under eighteen years of age.
(2) "Obscene" means material or a performance that:
(a) The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest in sex;
(b) Depicts or describes:
(I) Patently offensive representations or descriptions of ultimate sex acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated, including sexual intercourse, sodomy, and sexual bestiality; or
(II) Patently offensive representations or descriptions of masturbation, excretory functions, sadism, masochism, lewd exhibition of the genitals, the male or female genitals in a state of sexual stimulation or arousal, or covered male genitals in a discernibly turgid state; and
(c) Taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
(3) "Obscene device" means a device including a dildo or artificial vagina, designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs.
(4) "Patently offensive" means so offensive on its face as to affront current community standards of tolerance.
(5) "Performance" means a play, motion picture, dance, or other exhibition performed before an audience.
(6) "Promote" means to manufacture, issue, sell, give, provide, lend, mail, deliver, transfer, transmit, publish, distribute, circulate, disseminate, present, exhibit, or advertise, or to offer or agree to do the same.
(6.5) "Prurient interest" means a shameful or morbid interest.
(7) "Simulated" means the explicit depiction or description of any of the types of conduct set forth in paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of this section, which creates the appearance of such conduct.
(8) "Wholesale promote" means to manufacture, issue, sell, provide, mail, deliver, transfer, transmit, publish, distribute, circulate, disseminate, or to offer or agree to do the same for purpose of resale.
(9) If any of the depictions or descriptions of sexual conduct described in this section are declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unlawfully included herein, this declaration shall not invalidate this section as to other patently offensive sexual conduct included herein.
Source: L. 81: Entire part R&RE, p. 998, § 1, effective July 1. L. 86: (2)(b)(II) and (4) amended and (6.5) added, p. 782, § 1, effective April 21. L. 94: (1.5) added, p. 1720, § 16, effective July 1.
Editor's note: This section is similar to former § 18-7-101 as it existed prior to 1981.
Notes of Decisions
People v. Ford, 773 P.2d 1059 (Colo. 1989).
· cites it 35× “These appeals concern the constitutionality of the Colorado obscenity statute, §§ 18-7-101 to -105, 8B C.R.S. (1986). We have elected to consolidate three separate cases, for the purposes of this opinion, because each challenges the validity of the obscenity statute based upon…”
New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982).
· cites it 2× “1981); Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-7-101 (2) (Supp. 1981); Del.”
Pierce v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 565 P.2d 1337 (Colo. 1977).
· cites it 11× “In deciding the role of home rule cities in the regulation of obscenity in this state, we, of course, defer to the determination of our legislature that the matter of obscenity regulation is, in some respects, properly a matter for consistent state and local control.”
People v. New Horizons, Inc., 616 P.2d 106 (Colo. 1980).
· cites it 12× “In these appeals, which have been consolidated for the purposes of this opinion, we are called upon to determine the constitutionality of the Colorado Obscenity Statute, section 18-7-101, C.R.S. 1973 (now in 1978 Repl.”
People v. Graves, 2016 CO 15 (Colo. 2016).
· cites it 2× “To the extent such material may be obscene and therefore may be constitutionally regulated, it falls under Colorado’s obscenity statute, which has been closely drawn and narrowed over time to meet constitutional requirements.”
People v. Graves, 368 P.3d 317 (Colo. 2016).
· cites it 2× “See § 18-7-101(2), C.R.S. (2015); People v. Ford, 773 P.”
People v. Tabron, 544 P.2d 380 (Colo. 1976).
· cites it 6× “1973; see also section 18-7-101 (5) and (8), C.R.S. 1973.”
People v. Boles, 280 P.3d 55 (Colo. Ct. App. 2011).
“" § 18-7-101(6), C.R.8.2010. Defendant argues that the statute is unconstitutionally vague because "promote" is subject to multiple interpretations and its definition is "unrecognizable" as compared to dictionary definitions of the word.”
Lefevers v. State, 20 S.W.3d 707 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).
· cites it 4× “See Colo.Rev.Stat. § 18-7-101 (2) (b) (I) (1999) ("ultimate sex acts .”
Citizens for Free Enter. v. Dep't of Revenue, 649 P.2d 1054 (Colo. 1982).
· cites it 2× “In reaching our conclusion, we also necessarily reject the argument that in prescribing “Offenses Relating to Morals” in Article 7 of Title 18, section 18-7-101 et seq., C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl.”
Tattered Cover, Inc. v. Tooley, 696 P.2d 780 (Colo. 1985).
· cites it 2× “The parties agree that the materials involved in this case are not obscene as defined in section 18-7-101, 8 C.R.S. (1984 Supp.); rather, they are protected under the first amendment of the United States Constitution and article II, section 10 of the Colorado Constitution.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-7-101(1) — 2 cases
Pierce v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 565 P.2d 1337 (Colo. 1977).
“In deciding the role of home rule cities in the regulation of obscenity in this state, we, of course, defer to the determination of our legislature that the matter of obscenity regulation is, in some respects, properly a matter for consistent state and local control.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-7-101(2) — 6 cases
People v. Graves, 2016 CO 15 (Colo. 2016).
“To the extent such material may be obscene and therefore may be constitutionally regulated, it falls under Colorado’s obscenity statute, which has been closely drawn and narrowed over time to meet constitutional requirements.”
People v. Ford, 773 P.2d 1059 (Colo. 1989).
“These appeals concern the constitutionality of the Colorado obscenity statute, §§ 18-7-101 to -105, 8B C.R.S. (1986). We have elected to consolidate three separate cases, for the purposes of this opinion, because each challenges the validity of the obscenity statute based upon…”
People v. Graves, 368 P.3d 317 (Colo. 2016).
“See § 18-7-101(2), C.R.S. (2015); People v. Ford, 773 P.”
Pierce v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 565 P.2d 1337 (Colo. 1977).
“In deciding the role of home rule cities in the regulation of obscenity in this state, we, of course, defer to the determination of our legislature that the matter of obscenity regulation is, in some respects, properly a matter for consistent state and local control.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-7-101(2)(a) — 1 case
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-7-101(2)(b) — 2 cases
People v. Ford, 773 P.2d 1059 (Colo. 1989).
“These appeals concern the constitutionality of the Colorado obscenity statute, §§ 18-7-101 to -105, 8B C.R.S. (1986). We have elected to consolidate three separate cases, for the purposes of this opinion, because each challenges the validity of the obscenity statute based upon…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-7-101(2)(b)(I) — 2 cases
Lefevers v. State, 20 S.W.3d 707 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).
“See Colo.Rev.Stat. § 18-7-101 (2) (b) (I) (1999) ("ultimate sex acts .”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-7-101(2)(b)(II) — 1 case
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-7-101(3) — 1 case
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-7-101(4) — 2 cases
People v. Ford, 773 P.2d 1059 (Colo. 1989).
“These appeals concern the constitutionality of the Colorado obscenity statute, §§ 18-7-101 to -105, 8B C.R.S. (1986). We have elected to consolidate three separate cases, for the purposes of this opinion, because each challenges the validity of the obscenity statute based upon…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-7-101(5) — 2 cases
People v. Ford, 773 P.2d 1059 (Colo. 1989).
“These appeals concern the constitutionality of the Colorado obscenity statute, §§ 18-7-101 to -105, 8B C.R.S. (1986). We have elected to consolidate three separate cases, for the purposes of this opinion, because each challenges the validity of the obscenity statute based upon…”
People v. New Horizons, Inc., 616 P.2d 106 (Colo. 1980).
“In these appeals, which have been consolidated for the purposes of this opinion, we are called upon to determine the constitutionality of the Colorado Obscenity Statute, section 18-7-101, C.R.S. 1973 (now in 1978 Repl.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-7-101(6) — 3 cases
People v. Boles, 280 P.3d 55 (Colo. Ct. App. 2011).
“" § 18-7-101(6), C.R.8.2010. Defendant argues that the statute is unconstitutionally vague because "promote" is subject to multiple interpretations and its definition is "unrecognizable" as compared to dictionary definitions of the word.”
People v. New Horizons, Inc., 616 P.2d 106 (Colo. 1980).
“In these appeals, which have been consolidated for the purposes of this opinion, we are called upon to determine the constitutionality of the Colorado Obscenity Statute, section 18-7-101, C.R.S. 1973 (now in 1978 Repl.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-7-101(8) — 1 case
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.