Concerning clarifying the criminal jurisdiction of prosecutions to include harms committed against people located in Colorado regardless of where the defendant is located.
Summary
HB 26-1060 would clarify Colorado’s criminal jurisdiction statute to make clear that an offense may be prosecuted in Colorado when the harmful result is suffered by a person located in Colorado, even if the defendant acted from outside the state. The bill defines “result” broadly to include injury, loss, damage, or deprivation involving a thing of value, constitutional or statutory rights, access to information including electronic information, or a victim’s identity. It also preserves the existing homicide rule that a death is presumed to have occurred in Colorado if the body is found in the state.
The bill further states that a defendant does not need actual knowledge that the victim was in Colorado for jurisdiction to exist. Its legislative declaration emphasizes modern remote offenses and cross-border schemes, with a specific focus on protecting Colorado residents—especially older adults—from fraud and similar harms. The bill would take effect July 1, 2026, and apply only to offenses committed on or after that date.
Impact
The bill would amend Colorado Revised Statutes section 18-1-201, expanding and clarifying when an offense is considered committed partly within the state for purposes of criminal jurisdiction. It would expressly define “result” in the jurisdiction statute and add language eliminating any requirement that the defendant know the victim was in Colorado. The practical effect is to strengthen Colorado prosecutors’ ability to bring charges in cases involving remote, internet-based, or cross-border conduct that harms Colorado residents or their property, rights, information, or identity.
Sentiment
The bill’s stated purpose and framing suggest a generally supportive policy rationale centered on public safety, modern crime enforcement, and victim protection, particularly for elderly Coloradans targeted by fraud. However, the available voting history shows the House Judiciary Committee ultimately postponed the bill indefinitely, indicating that support was not sufficient to advance it in committee. No committee transcript or recorded vote details are available to show the specific balance of support and opposition.
Contention
The main point of contention appears to be the breadth of Colorado’s asserted criminal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants, especially where the defendant may not know the victim is in Colorado. Supporters likely viewed the bill as necessary to address remote fraud, identity theft, and other cross-border offenses, while opponents may have been concerned about due process, venue, or overreach in prosecuting conduct occurring outside Colorado. The committee’s decision to postpone indefinitely suggests unresolved concerns about the scope and implications of the jurisdictional expansion.