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

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-7-407 (2026)

Criminality of conduct

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

In any criminal prosecution under sections 18-7-402 to 18-7-407, it shall be no defense that the defendant did not know the child's age or that he reasonably believed the child to be eighteen years of age or older. Source: L. 79: Entire part RC&RE, p. 742, § 1, effective May 31.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1994–2021 · leading case: Peo v. Houser, 2020 COA 128 (Colo. Ct. App. 2020).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Peo v. Houser, 2020 COA 128 (Colo. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 47× “The prosecution filed an objection to the notice, arguing that section 18-7-407, C.R.S. 2019, which expressly applies to the child prostitution statutes, precluded 2 Houser from raising such a defense.”
v. Maloy, 2020 COA 71 (Colo. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 21× “Those that we must address — because they pertain to all of Maloy’s convictions — are that (1) the district court erred by determining that section 18-7-407, C.R.S. 2019, prohibited him from raising a reasonable mistake of age defense; (2) if, because of section 18-7-407,…”
v. Ross, 2021 CO 9 (Colo. 2021). · cites it 36× “Finally, like the trial court and the court of appeals, the supreme court rules that, while section 18-7-407, C.R.S. (2020), precludes a defendant from raising a defense based on either his lack of knowledge of the child’s age or his reasonable belief that the child was an…”
People v. Houser, 337 P.3d 1238 (Colo. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 15× “T 6 After defendant gave notice before trial of his intent to assert this defense, the trial court ruled that section 18-7-407, C.R.S. 2012, 1 prevented defendant from offering a reasonable belief defense, notwithstanding broad language in section 18-1-503.”
The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado v. Phillip L. ROSS, 479 P.3d 910 (Colo. 2021). · cites it 30× “¶5 And, like the trial court and the division, we conclude that, while section 18-7-407 , C.R.S. ( 2020 ) , precludes a defendant from raising a defense based on either his lack of knowledge of the child's age or his reasonable belief that the child was an adult, it does not…”
v. Ross, 2019 COA 79 (Colo. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 6× “Second, the division concludes that section 18-7-407, C.R.S. 2018, does not act to relieve the prosecution of its obligation to prove that the defendant solicited another for the purpose of child prostitution.”
People v. Bath, 890 P.2d 269 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “8B) (when child is below age fifteen), § 18-7-407, C.R.S. (1986 RepLVol. 8B) states that, in prosecutions for child prostitution, “it shall be no defense that the defendant did not know the child’s age or that he reasonably believed the child to be eighteen years of age or older.”
Peo v. Houser, 2020 COA 76 (Colo. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 47× “The prosecution filed an objection to the notice, arguing that section 18-7-407, C.R.S. 2019, which expressly applies to the child prostitution statutes, precluded 2 Houser from raising such a defense.”
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.