Consent Laws
Colorado
Last Updated: April 2023
| Defining Consent | Answer |
How is consent defined? |
“Consent” means cooperation in act or attitude pursuant to an exercise of free will and with knowledge of the nature of the act. A current or previous relationship is not sufficient to constitute consent. Submission under the influence of fear does not constitute consent. Colorado Revised Statutes Annotated § 18-3-401(1.5). |
Does the definition require "freely given consent" or "affirmative consent"? |
No. |
| Capacity to Consent | Answer |
At what age is a person able to consent? |
17 years old, subject to certain close-in-age exemptions (described below). Colorado Revised Statutes Annotated § 18-3-402(1)(d)-(e). |
Does difference in age between the victim and actor impact the victim's ability to consent? |
Yes, there are exceptions providing that: (i) children under the age of 15 can consent to sex with a person within 4 years of his or her age, and (ii) persons 15 or 16 years of age can consent to sex with an individual within 10 years of their age:
|
Does elderly age impact the victim’s ability to consent? |
No. |
Does developmental disability and/or mental incapacity impact the victim’s ability to consent? |
Yes, the actor may be guilty of sexual assault and/or unlawful sexual contact when the actor knows that the victim is incapable of appraising the nature of the victim’s conduct. Colorado Revised Statutes Annotated §§ 18-3-402(1)(b); 18-3-404(1)(b). |
Does physical disability, incapacity or helplessness impact the victim’s ability to consent? |
Yes, the actor may be guilty of sexual assault and/or unlawful sexual contact when the victim is “physically helpless” and the actor knows the victim is physically helpless and the victim has not consented. Colorado Revised Statutes Annotated §§ 18-3-402(1)(h); 18-3-404(1)(c). “Physically helpless” means unconscious, asleep, or otherwise unable to indicate willingness to act. Colorado Revised Statutes Annotated § 18-3-401(3). |
Does consciousness impact the victim’s ability to consent? |
Yes, unconsciousness falls within the definition of “physically helpless” and therefore the actor may be guilty of sexual assault and/or unlawful sexual contact when the victim is unconscious and the actor knows the victim is unconscious and the victim has not consented. Colorado Revised Statutes Annotated § 18-3-401. In addition, the sexual assault statute prohibiting sexual intrusion or penetration if actor knows that victim is incapable of appraising nature of victim's conduct may extend to victims who are partially asleep. People v. Platt, 170 P.3d 802 (Colo. App. 2007). |
Does intoxication impact the victim’s ability to consent? |
Yes, any actor who knowingly subjects a victim to any sexual contact commits unlawful sexual contact if the actor has substantially impaired the victim’s power to appraise or control the victim’s conduct by employing, without the victim’s consent, any drug, intoxicant, or other means for the purpose of causing submission. Colorado Revised Statutes Annotated § 18-3-404(1)(d). In addition, in People In Interest of G.B., 433 P.3d 138 (Colo. App. 2018), the court held that evidence that a sexual assault victim was intoxicated during sexual intercourse, and was for that reason incapable of appraising nature of her conduct, was sufficient to support a sexual assault conviction. |
Does the relationship between the victim and actor impact the victim’s ability to consent? |
Yes.
|
| Defenses | Answer |
Is consent a defense to sex crimes? |
Yes, consent may act as a defense to the elements of certain sex crimes, including:
Note: In People v. Bertrand, 342 P.3d 582 (Colo. App. 2014), the court held that consent was not a permissible defense to a charge for sexual assault based on defendant’s knowledge that the victim was incapable of appraising her conduct, since victim’s inability to appraise her conduct while defendant engaged in sexual intercourse with her necessarily negated her ability to consent. |
Is voluntary intoxication a defense to sex crimes? |
No. People v. Vigil, 43 Colo. App. 121, 122, 602 P.2d 884, 885 (1979) |