Colorado § 18-1-201 - State jurisdiction.

§ 18-1-201. State jurisdiction.

(1) A person is subject to prosecution in this state for an offense which he commits, by his own conduct or that of another for which he is legally accountable, if:

(a) The conduct constitutes an offense and is committed either wholly or partly within the state; or

(b) The conduct outside the state constitutes an attempt, as defined by this code, to commit an offense within the state; or

(c) The conduct outside the state constitutes a conspiracy to commit an offense within the state, and an act in furtherance of the conspiracy occurs in the state; or

(d) The conduct within the state constitutes an attempt, solicitation, or conspiracy to commit in another jurisdiction an offense prohibited under the laws of this state and such other jurisdiction.

(2) An offense is committed partly within this state if conduct occurs in this state which is an element of an offense or if the result of conduct in this state is such an element. In homicide, the "result" is either the physical contact which causes death or the death itself; and if the body of a criminal homicide victim is found within the state, the death is presumed to have occurred within the state.

(3) Whether an offender is in or outside of the state is immaterial to the commission of an offense based on an omission to perform a duty imposed by the law of this state.

Source: L. 71: R&RE, p. 391, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 40-1-201.

ANNOTATION

By this section, Colorado has modified the common-law rule of limited territorial jurisdiction by enlarging its power to prosecute crimes that may originate outside the state. People v. Martinez, 37 Colo. App. 71, 543 P.2d 1290 (1975); People v. Cullen, 695 P.2d 750 (Colo. App. 1984).

Jurisdiction not limited by district. Criminal jurisdiction over felony offenses committed in Colorado extends to all the district courts of Colorado. People v. Joseph, 920 P.2d 850 (Colo. App. 1995).

Criminal jurisdiction over felonies committed in Colorado generally extends to all district courts of the state. People v. Burgess, 946 P.2d 565 (Colo. App. 1997); People v. Brown, 70 P.3d 489 (Colo. App. 2002); People v. Sharp, 155 P.3d 577 (Colo. App. 2006).

Issue of sovereign jurisdiction a legal question for the trial court. Where determination of jurisdiction depends upon a resolution of disputed facts, the issue must be submitted to the jury with an appropriate instruction, regardless of whether raised by defendant. However, no plain error results from a failure to submit the issue to the jury if the uncontested facts overwhelmingly support jurisdiction. People v. Cullen, 695 P.2d 750 (Colo. App. 1984).

Larceny may be prosecuted at place goods stolen or brought. Larceny is considered a continuing crime and every asportation considered a new taking; thus larceny could be prosecuted not only at the place where the goods were stolen, but also wherever the goods were subsequently brought. People v. Martinez, 37 Colo. App. 71, 543 P.2d 1290 (1975).

Key analysis is not where e-mail threats are written or read, but rather whether the result of sender's conduct, causing a reasonable person to be in fear for his or her safety, occurs, at least in part, in this state. People v. Chase, 2013 COA 27, 411 P.3d 740.

Evidence sufficient to establish that e-mails, with their implicit and explicit threats, would have caused a reasonable person in recipients' position to fear for their safety and the safety of others in this state. People v. Chase, 2013 COA 27, 411 P.3d 740.

Conduct of making a credible threat occurred at least partly in this state because sender sent e-mails to addresses associated with individuals sender knew to reside here. Trial court therefore had jurisdiction over felony stalking counts. People v. Chase, 2013 COA 27, 411 P.3d 740.

Theft committed partly within state. Where there was evidence presented that defendant exercised control over stolen chain saws in Colorado without authorization, the offense of theft was "committed partly within this state" as contemplated by subsection (2), and, therefore, in accordance with subsection (1)(a) defendant "is subject to prosecution in this state" for that offense. People v. Martinez, 37 Colo. App. 71, 543 P.2d 1290 (1975).

Delivery of goods not "conduct" for purposes of subsection (2). People v. Tinkle, 714 P.2d 919 (Colo. App. 1985).

Colorado lacked subject matter jurisdiction over a defendant convicted of money laundering when the defendant opened a bank account in Texas, received and disbursed funds in Texas, and never solicited the Colorado victims to wire transfer funds to Texas. People v. Nevelik, 2021 COA 30, 491 P.3d 492.

The state lacked subject matter jurisdiction over defendant's prosecution because none of defendant's conduct forming a material element of either unauthorized use of a financial transaction device or identity theft occurred in the state, and the unauthorized use and identity theft statutes do not include a result element. People v. Brennan, 2025 COA 68, 577 P.3d 62.

Knowledge that the victim lives in the state is a circumstantial element, and is not a conduct or result element of the crime of unauthorized use of a financial transaction device or of identity theft and therefore should not be considered when determining jurisdiction. People v. Brennan, 2025 COA 68, 577 P.3d 62.

An omission to act in accordance with a custody decree is sufficient to confer jurisdiction on charges of second degree kidnapping. People v. Haynie, 826 P.2d 371 (Colo. App. 1991).

Defendant's alleged expatriation under the Expatriation Act of 1868 does not remove personal jurisdiction from a state court in a criminal prosecution where the offense was committed in that state. People v. Jones, 140 P.3d 325 (Colo. App. 2006).

District court had personal jurisdiction over defendant filing a Crim. P. 32(d) motion because defendant's filing of the motion constituted a waiver of any objection to jurisdiction. By filing the Crim. P. 32(d) motion, defendant subjected himself to the court's authority because the doctrine of personal jurisdiction exists to protect the individual against the exercise of the court's adjudicatory authority, and any action favorable to defendant taken by the court on defendant's motion would be for his benefit and at his request. People v. Corrales-Castro, 2015 COA 34M, 412 P.3d 701, rev'd on other grounds, 2017 CO 60, 395 P.3d 778.

Officers' testimony that they investigated defendant's conduct "here in Mesa County" makes it clear from the context of the testimony that the officers were referring to Mesa County, Colorado. People v. Torline, 2020 COA 160, 487 P.3d 1284.

Applied in People v. Warren, 196 Colo. 75, 582 P.2d 663 (1978); People v. Rice, 40 Colo. App. 357, 579 P.2d 647 (1978).