Expand Criminal Jurisdiction for Out-of-State Conduct
Summary
HB1060 would clarify Colorado’s criminal jurisdiction statute to make clear that an offense can be prosecuted in Colorado when conduct outside the state causes injury, loss, damage, or deprivation to a person located in Colorado. The bill expressly defines “result” to include harm to property, constitutional or statutory rights, access to information including electronic information, and identity, and it preserves the existing homicide rule that a death may be treated as occurring in Colorado if the victim’s body is found in the state.
The bill also states that a defendant does not need actual knowledge that the victim was in Colorado in order for Colorado to assert jurisdiction. Its legislative declaration frames the measure as a response to modern remote and cross-border crimes, with a particular emphasis on protecting older Coloradans from fraud and similar schemes.
Impact
If enacted, HB1060 would amend Colorado Revised Statutes section 18-1-201 to broaden and clarify when an offense is considered committed partly within the state for purposes of criminal prosecution. The change would strengthen the state’s ability to bring charges against defendants whose out-of-state conduct causes harm to Colorado residents, including harms involving digital access, identity theft, and other nonphysical losses, even when the defendant was not physically present in Colorado or aware of the victim’s location. The bill would apply only to offenses committed on or after July 1, 2026.
Sentiment
The available context suggests the bill was introduced with a public-safety and victim-protection rationale, especially for elderly victims of fraud and remote criminal schemes. However, the only recorded committee action was a 7-0 vote in House Judiciary to postpone the bill indefinitely, indicating that while the concept may have been considered seriously, it did not advance and may have faced concerns about the scope or implementation of expanded jurisdiction.
Contention
The main point of contention appears to be the reach of Colorado’s criminal jurisdiction over conduct occurring outside the state, particularly where the defendant lacks actual knowledge of the victim’s Colorado location. Potential concerns include due process, fairness, forum selection, and whether the state should prosecute conduct with only an indirect connection to Colorado. Supporters, as reflected in the declaration, emphasize protecting Colorado residents—especially seniors—from fraud, identity theft, and other cross-border harms, while the committee’s unanimous postponement suggests unresolved reservations about the proposal’s breadth or legal implications.