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

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-8-707 (2026)

Tampering with a witness or victim

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

(1) A person commits tampering with a witness or victim if he intentionally attempts without bribery or threats to induce a witness or victim or a person he believes is to be called to testify as a witness or victim in any official proceeding or who may be called to testify as a witness to or victim of any crime to:

(a) Testify falsely or unlawfully withhold any testimony; or

(b) Absent himself from any official proceeding to which he has been legally summoned; or

(c) Avoid legal process summoning him to testify.

(2) Tampering with a witness or victim is a class 4 felony.

Source: L. 84: Entire part added, p. 502, § 4, effective July 1.

Editor's note: This section is similar to former § 18-8-605 as it existed prior to 1984.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1989–2026 · leading case: People v. Yascavage, 101 P.3d 1090 (Colo. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Yascavage, 101 P.3d 1090 (Colo. 2004). · cites it 108× “[1] The court of appeals reversed the conviction for insufficient evidence because it concluded that section 18-8-707, C.R.S. (2004) (the "tampering statute"), requires proof that the victim or witness with whom the defendant tampered had been legally summoned to a proceeding.”
People v. Cunefare, 102 P.3d 302 (Colo. 2004). · cites it 62× “2003), the court of appeals reversed Harold Cunefare's convictions for tampering with a witness or victim under section 18-8-707, C.R.S. (2004), and for forgery under section 18-5-102, C.”
People v. Cunefare, 85 P.3d 594 (Colo. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 18× “Under these circumstances, the record is devoid of proof necessary to reasonably convince the trier of fact that a violation of § 18-8-707 occurred. The People argue that defendant's request to the victim "had the practical effect" of asking her to withhold testimony, but, in…”
People v. Scialabba, 55 P.3d 207 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 5× “See § 18-8-707, C.R.S.2001. Given the prosecution's argument and the fact that at trial defendant did not perceive any confusion in the evidence that would raise a unanimity issue, we are not persuaded that the lack of an instruction casts doubt on the reliability of the verdict.”
People v. Nozolino, 350 P.3d 940 (Colo. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 7× “Although Nozolino does not reference preservation in his opening brief, Nozolino moved to dismiss the witness tampering indictment "based on [the] First Amendment." Without objection, the district court found that the motion asserted an as-applied challenge to the…”
Butler v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners for San Miguel Cnty., 2021 COA 32 (Colo. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 3× “2004) (interpreting “legally summoned” in section 18-8-707(1)(b), C.R.S. 2020, as not requiring a subpoena).”
People v. Yascavage, 80 P.3d 899 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 4× “Section 18-8-707, C.R.S.2002, provides, in relevant part, that [a] person commits tampering with a witness or victim if he intentionally attempts without bribery or threats to induce a witness or victim or a person he believes is to be called to testify as a witness or victim in…”
People v. Fox, 862 P.2d 1000 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 6× “Here, the trial court determined that, as to certain letters written by defendant to his wife, parts of the letters were written for the purpose of aiding the commission of a future crime, namely, witness tampering under § 18-8-707, C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 8B). After making…”
People v. Hickman, 988 P.2d 628 (Colo. 1999). · cites it 2× “[17] See § 18-8-703 ("Bribing a witness or victim"); § 18-8-704 ("Intimidating a witness or victim"); § 18-8-705 ("Aggravated intimidation of a witness or victim"); and § 18-8-707 ("Tampering with a witness or victim").”
People v. Martinez, 869 P.2d 519 (Colo. 1994). “See § 18-8-707, 8B C.R.S. (1986). Accordingly, the record does *536 not demonstrate that the defendant understood the conflict between his counsel’s obligation to conduct vigorous cross examination of Olguin and Harris on the defendant’s behalf and defense counsel’s interest in…”
State v. Gray, 258 P.3d 242 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). “540 ("knowingly induces or attempts to induce"); Colo.Rev.Stat. § 18-8-707 (“intentionally attempts without bribery or threats to induce”); Conn.”
People v. Roybal, 775 P.2d 67 (Colo. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “See § 18-8-707, C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 8B); COLJI-Crim.”
Show all 22 citing cases →
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-8-707(1) — 6 cases
People v. Yascavage, 101 P.3d 1090 (Colo. 2004). “[1] The court of appeals reversed the conviction for insufficient evidence because it concluded that section 18-8-707, C.R.S. (2004) (the "tampering statute"), requires proof that the victim or witness with whom the defendant tampered had been legally summoned to a proceeding.”
People v. Scialabba, 55 P.3d 207 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002). “See § 18-8-707, C.R.S.2001. Given the prosecution's argument and the fact that at trial defendant did not perceive any confusion in the evidence that would raise a unanimity issue, we are not persuaded that the lack of an instruction casts doubt on the reliability of the verdict.”
People v. Cunefare, 85 P.3d 594 (Colo. Ct. App. 2004). “Under these circumstances, the record is devoid of proof necessary to reasonably convince the trier of fact that a violation of § 18-8-707 occurred. The People argue that defendant's request to the victim "had the practical effect" of asking her to withhold testimony, but, in…”
People v. Nozolino, 350 P.3d 940 (Colo. Ct. App. 2014). “Although Nozolino does not reference preservation in his opening brief, Nozolino moved to dismiss the witness tampering indictment "based on [the] First Amendment." Without objection, the district court found that the motion asserted an as-applied challenge to the…”
People v. Larry Gene Lancaster (Colo. Ct. App. 2022).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-8-707(1)(a) — 7 cases
People v. Cunefare, 102 P.3d 302 (Colo. 2004). “2003), the court of appeals reversed Harold Cunefare's convictions for tampering with a witness or victim under section 18-8-707, C.R.S. (2004), and for forgery under section 18-5-102, C.”
People v. Yascavage, 101 P.3d 1090 (Colo. 2004). “[1] The court of appeals reversed the conviction for insufficient evidence because it concluded that section 18-8-707, C.R.S. (2004) (the "tampering statute"), requires proof that the victim or witness with whom the defendant tampered had been legally summoned to a proceeding.”
People v. Nozolino, 350 P.3d 940 (Colo. Ct. App. 2014). “Although Nozolino does not reference preservation in his opening brief, Nozolino moved to dismiss the witness tampering indictment "based on [the] First Amendment." Without objection, the district court found that the motion asserted an as-applied challenge to the…”
People v. Cunefare, 85 P.3d 594 (Colo. Ct. App. 2004). “Under these circumstances, the record is devoid of proof necessary to reasonably convince the trier of fact that a violation of § 18-8-707 occurred. The People argue that defendant's request to the victim "had the practical effect" of asking her to withhold testimony, but, in…”
Peo v. Clark (Colo. Ct. App. 2024).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-8-707(1)(b) — 4 cases
People v. Yascavage, 101 P.3d 1090 (Colo. 2004). “[1] The court of appeals reversed the conviction for insufficient evidence because it concluded that section 18-8-707, C.R.S. (2004) (the "tampering statute"), requires proof that the victim or witness with whom the defendant tampered had been legally summoned to a proceeding.”
People v. Cunefare, 102 P.3d 302 (Colo. 2004). “2003), the court of appeals reversed Harold Cunefare's convictions for tampering with a witness or victim under section 18-8-707, C.R.S. (2004), and for forgery under section 18-5-102, C.”
Butler v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners for San Miguel Cnty., 2021 COA 32 (Colo. Ct. App. 2021). “2004) (interpreting “legally summoned” in section 18-8-707(1)(b), C.R.S. 2020, as not requiring a subpoena).”
People v. Cunefare, 85 P.3d 594 (Colo. Ct. App. 2004). “Under these circumstances, the record is devoid of proof necessary to reasonably convince the trier of fact that a violation of § 18-8-707 occurred. The People argue that defendant's request to the victim "had the practical effect" of asking her to withhold testimony, but, in…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-8-707(1)(c) — 2 cases
People v. Yascavage, 101 P.3d 1090 (Colo. 2004). “[1] The court of appeals reversed the conviction for insufficient evidence because it concluded that section 18-8-707, C.R.S. (2004) (the "tampering statute"), requires proof that the victim or witness with whom the defendant tampered had been legally summoned to a proceeding.”
People v. Cunefare, 102 P.3d 302 (Colo. 2004). “2003), the court of appeals reversed Harold Cunefare's convictions for tampering with a witness or victim under section 18-8-707, C.R.S. (2004), and for forgery under section 18-5-102, C.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-8-707(I)(a) — 1 case
People v. Nozolino, 350 P.3d 940 (Colo. Ct. App. 2014). “Although Nozolino does not reference preservation in his opening brief, Nozolino moved to dismiss the witness tampering indictment "based on [the] First Amendment." Without objection, the district court found that the motion asserted an as-applied challenge to the…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-8-707(I)(c) — 1 case
People v. Cunefare, 102 P.3d 302 (Colo. 2004). “2003), the court of appeals reversed Harold Cunefare's convictions for tampering with a witness or victim under section 18-8-707, C.R.S. (2004), and for forgery under section 18-5-102, C.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-8-707(l)(a) — 1 case
People v. Cunefare, 85 P.3d 594 (Colo. Ct. App. 2004). “Under these circumstances, the record is devoid of proof necessary to reasonably convince the trier of fact that a violation of § 18-8-707 occurred. The People argue that defendant's request to the victim "had the practical effect" of asking her to withhold testimony, but, in…”
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.