CO Code § 18-1-301 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 18 - Criminal Code|Article 1 - Provisions Applicable to Offenses Generally|Part 3 - When Prosecution Barred by Former Proceedings|§ 18-1-301. Second Trial Barred by Former Prosecution for Same Offense

  If a prosecution is for a violation of the same provision of law and is based upon the same facts as a former prosecution, it is barred by the former prosecution under the following circumstances:   The former prosecution resulted in an acquittal. There is an acquittal if the prosecution resulted in a finding of not guilty by the trier of fact or in a determination that there was insufficient evidence to warrant a conviction. A finding of guilty of a lesser included offense is an acquittal of the greater inclusive offense even though the conviction is subsequently set aside.    The former prosecution was terminated by a final order or judgment for the defendant that has not been set aside, reversed, or vacated, and that necessarily required a determination inconsistent with a fact or a legal proposition that must be established for conviction of the offense.    The former prosecution resulted in a conviction. There is a conviction if the prosecution resulted in a judgment of conviction that has not been reversed or vacated, a verdict of guilty that has not been set aside and that is capable of supporting a judgment, or a plea of guilty accepted by the court. In the latter two instances, failure to enter judgment must be for a reason other than a motion of the defendant.    The former prosecution was improperly terminated. Except as otherwise provided in subsection (2) of this section, there is an improper termination of a prosecution if the termination is for reasons not amounting to an acquittal, and it takes place after the jury is sworn if the case is tried by a jury or after the first prosecution witness is sworn if trial is by court following waiver of jury trial.       Termination is not improper under any of the following circumstances:   The defendant consents to the termination or waives his right to object to the termination. The defendant is deemed to have waived all objections to a termination of the trial unless his objections to the order of termination are made of record at the time of the entry thereof.    The trial court finds that:   The termination is necessary because it is physically impossible to proceed with the trial in conformity with the law; or    There is a legal defect in the proceedings that would make any judgment entered upon a verdict reversible as a matter of law; or    Prejudicial conduct has occurred in or outside the courtroom making it unjust either to the defendant or to the state to proceed with the trial; or    The jury is unable to agree upon a verdict; or    False statements of a juror on voir dire prevent a fair trial.           History. Source: L. 71: R&RE, p. 396, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 40-1-401 .    ANNOTATION   Jeopardy does not attach if an information is insufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction. People v. Garner, 187 Colo. 294 , 530 P.2d 496 (1975).   Jeopardy attaches upon guilty plea. Jeopardy attaches to a county court prosecution when the defendant enters a plea of guilty. Corr v. District Court, 661 P.2d 668 (Colo. 1983).   Jeopardy attaches upon court's acceptance of a plea of guilty, and the attachment of jeopardy is what triggers the statutory bar of subsection (2) of § 18-1-408 . Jeffrey v. District Court, 626 P.2d 631 (Colo. 1981).   Jeopardy attaches after first prosecution witness is sworn in, so, because no witnesses had yet been sworn in in the habitual criminal proceeding when the trial court dismissed the charges, jeopardy was not considered to have attached. People v. Barnum, 217 P.3d 908 (Colo. App. 2009).   Compulsory joinder broader than “same offense” principle or collateral estoppel. The compulsory joinder requirement of subsection (2) of § 18-1-408 is broader than both the “same offense” principle of double jeopardy as codified in this section and the collateral estoppel effect of a prior determination of an ultimate fact as outlined in § 18-1-302 . Jeffrey v. District Court, 626 P.2d 631 (Colo. 1981); Corr v. District Court, 661 P.2d 668 (Colo. 1983).   Protection from reprosecution where proceedings improperly terminated. Where defendants had completed a full trial and all charges had been submitted to the jury, and the jury returned a verdict on only one of the numerous charges, dismissal of the jury without further instruction or deliberation on the remaining charges is an improper termination of the proceedings, and the defendants are protected from reprosecution on those charges. Ortiz v. District Court, 626 P.2d 642 (Colo. 1981).   Where trial judge, despite objections of defense attorney, erroneously declared a mistrial sua sponte because a key staff member resigned, the docket was crowded, and the trial ran longer than was anticipated, second trial was barred by double jeopardy. The court's reasons for declaring a mistrial were not substantial enough to warrant a finding of “manifest necessity”. People v. Berreth, 13 P.3d 1214 (Colo. 2000).   Double jeopardy principles do not prevent reinstatement of a defendant's habitual criminal counts. The state's double jeopardy law does not apply to noncapital sentencing proceedings, so double jeopardy does not bar trial of a defendant's habitual counts. People v. Porter, 2015 CO 34, 348 P.3d 922.   Where the court gave defendant a choice between a mistrial and a continuance, defendant's response that he did not request either was sufficient to preserve his objection. Paul v. People, 105 P.3d 628 (Colo. 2005).   Trial court did in fact declare a mistrial based on jury deadlock. Although the trial court did not expressly declare a mistrial at the time the jury returned the unsigned verdict form, the record showed that the court and the parties understood that a mistrial had been declared. People v. Richardson, 184 P.3d 755 (Colo. 2008).   Trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering a mistrial when the defense did not disclose to prosecution a defense witness's new alibi evidence and elicited the evidence on cross-examination. People v. Jackson, 2018 COA 79 , 474 P.3d 60, aff'd on other grounds, 2020 CO 75, 472 P.3d 553.   Applied in People v. Bartsch, 37 Colo. App. 52, 543 P.2d 1273 (1975); People v. Hoinville, 191 Colo. 357 , 553 P.2d 777 (1976).