reglab/housing_qa huggingface dataset:
CO Code § 18-1-101 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 18 - Criminal Code|Article 1 - Provisions Applicable to Offenses Generally|Part 1 - Purpose and Scope of Code - Classification of Offenses|§ 18-1-101. Citation of Title 18

  This title shall be known and may be cited as the “Colorado Criminal Code”; within this title, the “Colorado Criminal Code” is sometimes referred to as “this code”.    The portion of any section, subsection, paragraph, or subparagraph contained in this code which precedes a list of examples, requirements, conditions, or other items may be referred to and cited as the “introductory portion” of the section, subsection, paragraph, or subparagraph.     History. Source: L. 71: R&RE, p. 388, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 40-1-101 .    ANNOTATION   Caption “criminal code” complies with constitutional requirements concerning titles. The caption “criminal code” is broad enough to embrace every offense against the law that can be classified as a misdemeanor or felony as well as criminal pleading and practice, and fully complies with the constitutional requirements concerning titles to legislation. Heller v. People, 2 Colo. App. 459, 31 P. 773 (1892) (decided under G.S. § 1616).   Although a child under the age of 10 cannot be found guilty of a crime, such a child can commit a crime. Therefore, an adult can be found guilty of contributing to the delinquency of a minor where the minor is under the age of 10. People v. Miller, 830 P.2d 1092 (Colo. App. 1991).
CO Code § 18-1-304 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 18 - Criminal Code|Article 1 - Provisions Applicable to Offenses Generally|Part 3 - When Prosecution Barred by Former Proceedings|§ 18-1-304. Former Prosecution Not a Bar

  A former prosecution is not a bar within the meaning of sections 18-1-301 to 18-1-303, if the former prosecution:   Was before a court that lacked jurisdiction over the defendant or the offense; or    Was procured by the defendant without the knowledge of the appropriate prosecuting official and with the intent to avoid the sentence that otherwise might be imposed; or    Resulted in a judgment of conviction that was set aside, reversed, or vacated upon appeal or in any other subsequent judicial proceeding.        History. Source: L. 71: R&RE, p. 398, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 40-1-404 .    ANNOTATION   Defendant's arrest in stolen car in California and subsequent California prosecution does not amount to procuring prosecution in California for purposes of the exception. California law enforcement pulled over and arrested defendant for unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle because stolen Colorado vehicle contained antitheft transmitter. Merely being present in California with a stolen car stops short of procuring a prosecution under this section. The fact that defendant accepted California plea based on lawyer's advice that it would allow him to avoid prosecution in Colorado does not affect analysis because his decision to take the plea occurred after his prosecution began and did not bring about the prosecution. People v. Giem, , 378 P.3d 809 .
CO Code § 18-1-401 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 18 - Criminal Code|Article 1 - Provisions Applicable to Offenses Generally|Part 4 - Rights of Defendant|§ 18-1-401. Purpose

 It is the intent of this part 4 to confer upon every person accused of an offense the benefits arising from said part 4 as a matter of substantive right, in implementation of minimum standards of criminal justice within the concept of due process of law.   History. Source: L. 71: R&RE, p. 398, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 40-1-501 .    ANNOTATION   Applied in People v. Aragon, 665 P.2d 137 (Colo. App. 1982); People v. Germany, 674 P.2d 345 (Colo. 1983).
CO Code § 18-1-403 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 18 - Criminal Code|Article 1 - Provisions Applicable to Offenses Generally|Part 4 - Rights of Defendant|§ 18-1-403. Legal Assistance and Supporting Services

 All indigent persons who are charged with or held for the commission of a crime are entitled to legal representation and supporting services at state expense, to the extent and in the manner provided for in articles 1 and 2 of title 21, C.R.S.   History. Source: L. 71: R&RE, p. 398, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 40-1-503 . L. 81: Entire section amended, p. 928, § 2, September 1. L. 96: Entire section amended, p. 1016, § 4, effective May 23. L. 2014: Entire section amended,(HB 14-1363), ch. 302, p. 1264, § 11, effective May 31.    Cross references:   For other provisions concerning legal counsel for the indigent, see § 16 of art. II, Colo. Const., and Crim. P. 44.   ANNOTATION   Law reviews. For article, “Pronouncements of the U.S. Supreme Court Relating to the Criminal Law Field: 1985-1986”, which discusses cases relating to the right to counsel, see 15 Colo. Law. 1578 (1986).   Annotator's note. For other annotations concerning legal counsel for the indigent, see § 16 of art. II, Colo. Const., and Crim. P. 44.   Implementation of ABA standards. The general assembly, in adopting this section, was endeavoring to meet and implement the ABA standards for criminal justice relating to providing defense services. Brown v. District Court, 189 Colo. 469 , 541 P.2d 1248 (1975).   For the right of defendant to have counsel appointed for appeal, see In re Griffin, 152 Colo. 347 , 382 P.2d 202 (1963).   Motion within discretion of court. The granting or denial of a motion to provide supporting services to counsel for an indigent defendant in a criminal prosecution is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court. Brown v. District Court, 189 Colo. 469 , 541 P.2d 1248 (1975); People v. Marquiz, 685 P.2d 242 (Colo. App. 1984), aff'd, 726 P.2d 1105 (Colo. 1986); People v. Tafoya, 703 P.2d 663 (Colo. App. 1985).   Must demonstrate need for appointment of expert witness. Having failed to demonstrate any particularized and reasonable need for the appointment of investigatory, expert, or other defense services, defendant was not entitled to the appointment of expert witnesses. Brown v. District Court, 189 Colo. 469 , 541 P.2d 1248 (1975).   Defendant entitled to have his expert take fingerprints from a plastic bag containing cocaine seized from his car, however, he was not entitled to require the state to conduct such fingerprint analysis. People v. Roy, 948 P.2d 99 (Colo. App. 1977).   Trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to provide, at state expense, a private interpreter to translate out-of-court discussions between defendant and his attorney where legal representation was supplied by a pro bono attorney rather than a public defender. People v. Cardenas, 62 P.3d 621 (Colo. 2002).   Applied in Bd. of County Comm'rs v. Buck, 168 Colo. 499 , 452 P.2d 6 (1969).
CO Code § 18-1-411 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 18 - Criminal Code|Article 1 - Provisions Applicable to Offenses Generally|Part 4 - Rights of Defendant|§ 18-1-411. Postconviction Testing of Dna - Definitions

 As used in this section and in sections 18-1-412 to 18-1-416 , unless the context otherwise requires:    “Actual innocence” means clear and convincing evidence such that no reasonable juror would have convicted the defendant.    “Actual or constructive possession” means the biological evidence is maintained or stored on the premises of the law enforcement agency or at another location or facility under the custody or control of the law enforcement agency, including pursuant to an agreement or contract with the law enforcement agency and a third-party service provider, in Colorado or elsewhere.    “DNA” means deoxyribonucleic acid.    “Incarcerated” means physically housed in a department of corrections facility, a private correctional facility under contract with the department of corrections, or a county jail following a felony conviction, or in a juvenile facility following adjudication for an offense that would have been a felony if committed by an adult, or under parole supervision.     History. Source: L. 2003: Entire section added, p. 815, § 1, effective August 6.
CO Code § 18-1-413 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 18 - Criminal Code|Article 1 - Provisions Applicable to Offenses Generally|Part 4 - Rights of Defendant|§ 18-1-413. Content of Application for Dna Testing

  A court shall not order DNA testing unless the petitioner demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that:   Favorable results of the DNA testing will demonstrate the petitioner's actual innocence;    A law enforcement agency collected biological evidence pertaining to the offense and retains actual or constructive possession of the evidence that allows for reliable DNA testing;      Conclusive DNA results were not available prior to the petitioner's conviction; and (c) (I) Conclusive DNA results were not available prior to the petitioner's conviction; and    The petitioner did not secure DNA testing prior to his or her conviction because DNA testing was not reasonably available or for reasons that constitute justifiable excuse, ineffective assistance of counsel, or excusable neglect; and       The petitioner consents to provide a biological sample for DNA testing.         History. Source: L. 2003: Entire section added, p. 816, § 1, effective August 6.    ANNOTATION   Defendant not entitled to DNA testing under this section because defendant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that favorable results of DNA testing would demonstrate his actual innocence. People v. Young, 2014 COA 169 , 412 P.3d 676.   Defendant failed to satisfy the actual innocence prong. The absence of defendant's DNA on the mattress pad, blanket, extension cord, and victim's clothes would not constitute “clear and convincing evidence such that no reasonable juror would have convicted the defendant.” DNA testing of these items would not necessarily or logically rebut other strong evidence of the defendant's guilt. People v. Thompson, 2020 COA 117 , __ P.3d __.
CO Code § 18-1-414 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 18 - Criminal Code|Article 1 - Provisions Applicable to Offenses Generally|Part 4 - Rights of Defendant|§ 18-1-414. Preservation of Evidence

  A petitioner shall not be entitled to relief based solely on an allegation that a law enforcement agency failed to preserve biological evidence.      A court granting a motion for hearing pursuant to section 18-1-412 shall order the appropriate law enforcement agency to preserve existing biological evidence for DNA testing.    If a law enforcement agency, through negligence, destroys, loses, or otherwise disposes of biological evidence that is the subject of an order pursuant to this subsection (2) before the evidence may be tested, the court shall set a hearing to determine whether a remedy is warranted. If the court determines that a remedy is warranted, the court may order whatever remedy the court finds is just, equitable, and appropriate. Nothing in this subsection (2) shall be construed to limit or eliminate the court's authority to order any remedy otherwise available under law for the destruction, loss, or disposal of evidence.    For the purposes of this subsection (2), “negligence” means a departure from the ordinary standard of care.       Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, this section does not create a duty to preserve biological evidence. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (2) of this section, this section does not create a liability on the part of a law enforcement agency for failing to preserve biological evidence.      History. Source: L. 2003: Entire section added, p. 817, § 1, effective August 6. L. 2008: (2) and (3) amended, p. 1513, § 2, effective May 28.    Cross references:   For the legislative declaration contained in the 2008 act amending subsections (2) and (3), see section 1 of chapter 322, Session Laws of Colorado 2008.   ANNOTATION   Defendant not entitled to relief under this section because defendant failed to establish entitlement to DNA testing under § 18-1-413 . People v. Young, 2014 COA 169 , 412 P.3d 676.
CO Code § 18-1-415 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 18 - Criminal Code|Article 1 - Provisions Applicable to Offenses Generally|Part 4 - Rights of Defendant|§ 18-1-415. Testing - Payment

 All testing shall be performed at a law enforcement facility, and the petitioner shall pay for the testing. If the petitioner is indigent and represented by either the public defender or alternate defense counsel, and with the approval of the public defender or the alternate defense counsel, the costs of the testing shall be paid from their budget.   History. Source: L. 2003: Entire section added, p. 817, § 1, effective August 6. L. 2010: Entire section amended, (HB 10-1422), ch. 419, p. 2073, § 31, effective August 11.
CO Code § 18-1-416 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 18 - Criminal Code|Article 1 - Provisions Applicable to Offenses Generally|Part 4 - Rights of Defendant|§ 18-1-416. Results of the Dna Test

  Notwithstanding any law or rule of procedure that bars a motion for post-conviction review as untimely, a petitioner may use the results of a DNA test ordered pursuant to section 18-1-413 as the grounds for filing a motion for post-conviction review under section 18-1-410 and the Colorado rules of criminal procedure.    The testing laboratory shall make the results of a DNA test ordered pursuant to section 18-1-413 available to the combined DNA index system and to any Colorado, federal, or other law enforcement DNA databases.     History. Source: L. 2003: Entire section added, p. 817, § 1, effective August 6.
CO Code § 18-1-417 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 18 - Criminal Code|Article 1 - Provisions Applicable to Offenses Generally|Part 4 - Rights of Defendant|§ 18-1-417. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claims - Waiver of Confidentiality

  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, whenever a defendant alleges ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant automatically waives any confidentiality, including attorney-client and work-product privileges, between counsel and defendant, and between the defendant or counsel and any expert witness retained or appointed in connection with the representation, but only with respect to the information that is related to the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance. After the defendant alleges ineffective assistance of counsel, the allegedly ineffective counsel and an expert witness may discuss with, may disclose any aspect of the representation that is related to the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance to, and may produce documents related to such representation that are related to the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance to the prosecution without the need for an order by the court that confidentiality has been waived.    If the allegedly ineffective counsel or an expert witness has released his or her file or a portion thereof to defendant or defendant's current counsel, defendant or current counsel shall permit the prosecution to inspect and copy any or all portions of the file that are related to the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance upon request of the prosecution.     History. Source: L. 2005: Entire section added, p. 424, § 2, effective April 29.    ANNOTATION   Law reviews. For article, “Trial Counsel's Continued Duty of Confidentiality in Postconviction Proceedings”, see 48 Colo. Law. 32 (Dec. 2019).
CO Code § 18-1-601 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 18 - Criminal Code|Article 1 - Provisions Applicable to Offenses Generally|Part 6 - Parties to Offenses - Accountability|§ 18-1-601. Liability Based Upon Behavior

 A person is guilty of an offense if it is committed by the behavior of another person for which he is legally accountable as provided in sections 18-1-602 to 18-1-607 .   History. Source: L. 71: R&RE, p. 406, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 40-1-701 .    ANNOTATION   Applied in People v. Calvaresi, 198 Colo. 321 , 600 P.2d 57 (1979); People v. R.V., 43 Colo. App. 349, 606 P.2d 1311 (1979); People v. R.V., 635 P.2d 892 (Colo. 1981).
CO Code § 18-1-602 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 18 - Criminal Code|Article 1 - Provisions Applicable to Offenses Generally|Part 6 - Parties to Offenses - Accountability|§ 18-1-602. Behavior of Another

  A person is legally accountable for the behavior of another person if:   He is made accountable for the conduct of that person by the statute defining the offense or by specific provision of this code; or    He acts with the culpable mental state sufficient for the commission of the offense in question and he causes an innocent person to engage in such behavior.       As used in subsection (1) of this section, “innocent person” includes any person who is not guilty of the offense in question, despite his behavior, because of duress, legal incapacity or exemption, or unawareness of the criminal nature of the conduct in question or of the defendant's criminal purpose, or any other factor precluding the mental state sufficient for the commission of the offense in question.     History. Source: L. 71: R&RE, p. 406, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 40-1-702 .    ANNOTATION   Law reviews. For article, “Mens Rea and the Colorado Criminal Code”, see 52 U. Colo. L. Rev. 167 (1981).   Applied in People v. Treat, 193 Colo. 570 , 568 P.2d 473 (1977).
CO Code § 18-1-604 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 18 - Criminal Code|Article 1 - Provisions Applicable to Offenses Generally|Part 6 - Parties to Offenses - Accountability|§ 18-1-604. Exemptions From Liability Based Upon Behavior of Another

  Unless otherwise provided by the statute defining the offense, a person shall not be legally accountable for behavior of another constituting an offense if he is a victim of that offense or the offense is so defined that his conduct is inevitably incidental to its commission.    It shall be an affirmative defense to a charge under section 18-1-603 if, prior to the commission of the offense, the defendant terminated his effort to promote or facilitate its commission and either gave timely warning to law enforcement authorities or gave timely warning to the intended victim.     History. Source: L. 71: R&RE, p. 406, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 40-1-704 .    Cross references:   For other provisions concerning affirmative defenses generally, see §§ 18-1-407 , 18-1-710 , and 18-1-805 .
CO Code § 18-1-605 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 18 - Criminal Code|Article 1 - Provisions Applicable to Offenses Generally|Part 6 - Parties to Offenses - Accountability|§ 18-1-605. Liability Based on Behavior of Another - No Defense

 In any prosecution for an offense in which criminal liability is based upon the behavior of another pursuant to sections 18-1-601 to 18-1-604 , it is no defense that the other person has not been prosecuted for or convicted of any offense based upon the behavior in question or has been convicted of a different offense or degree of offense, or the defendant belongs to a class of persons who by definition of the offense are legally incapable of committing the offense in an individual capacity.   History. Source: L. 71: R&RE, p. 406, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 40-1-705 .    ANNOTATION   Annotator's note. Since § 18-1-605 is similar to former § 40-1-12 , C.R.S. 1963, and laws antecedent thereto, relevant cases construing those provisions have been included in the annotations to this section.   At common law a conviction of the principal was required to precede or accompany that of one charged as an accessory and the accessory was subject to the same punishment as the principal. Howard v. People, 97 Colo. 550 , 51 P.2d 594 (1935).   The conviction of the principal is not a condition precedent to the conviction of an accessory after the fact, before, or during the fact. Oaks v. People, 161 Colo. 561 , 424 P.2d 115 (1967).   An accessory is subject to independent prosecution and can be convicted even though principal actor has been neither charged nor convicted of an offense. Oaks v. Patterson, 278 F. Supp. 703 (D. Colo.), aff'd on other grounds, 400 F.2d 392 (10th Cir. 1968).   He may be convicted of a greater crime than the principal, who pled guilty to a lesser included crime, and according to the state, acted under influence of accessory when shooting decedent; such conviction does not deny accessory due process. Oaks v. Patterson, 278 F. Supp. 703 (D. Colo.), aff'd on other grounds, 400 F.2d 392 (10th Cir. 1968).   Dismissal of information as to principal does not justify discharge of accessory by court. The dismissal of an information as to a principal, and his discharge, does not justify the discharge of the accessory by the court of its own motion, against the protests of the district attorney. People v. Zobel, 54 Colo. 284 , 130 P. 837 (1913).   Applied in People v. Fletcher, 37 Colo. App. 173, 546 P.2d 980 (1975), rev'd on other grounds, 193 Colo. 314 , 566 P.2d 345 (1977).
CO Code § 18-1-607 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 18 - Criminal Code|Article 1 - Provisions Applicable to Offenses Generally|Part 6 - Parties to Offenses - Accountability|§ 18-1-607. Criminal Liability of an Individual for Corporate Conduct

 A person is criminally liable for conduct constituting an offense which he performs or causes to occur in the name of or in behalf of a corporation to the same extent as if that conduct were performed or caused by him in his own name or behalf.   History. Source: L. 71: R&RE, p. 407, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 40-1-707 .    ANNOTATION   Law reviews. For article, “Criminal Prosecution of Employers for Workplace Deaths and Injuries”, see 16 Colo. Law. 1974 (1987).   A corporate officer may be criminally liable for embezzlement or larceny of property of third person through a corporate act where the act was performed by the individual officer, or at his direction, or by his permission. Hartson v. People, 125 Colo. 1 , 240 P.2d 907 (1951) (decided under CSA, C. 108, § 102).   It is not grounds for dismissal that defendant did not personally participate in every part of the transaction if, as the evidence indicates, he was the causative force behind acts performed in the corporation's name. People v. Treat, 193 Colo. 570 , 568 P.2d 473 (1977).