Track

Status

Governing provision

No limit — § 16-5-401(1)(a): “Murder, kidnapping, treason, any sex offense against a child, and any forgery regardless of the penalty provided: No limit”, and likewise for attempt, conspiracy or solicitation to commit any of those offenses. 

What counts — § 16-5-401(1)(c)(IV): “‘Sex offense against a child’ means any ‘unlawful sexual offense’, as defined in section 18-3-411(1), C.R.S., that is a felony.” Section 18-3-411(1) lists those offenses, including sexual assault on a child (§ 18-3-405), sexual assault on a child by one in a position of trust (§ 18-3-405.3), aggravated incest (§ 18-6-302), sexual exploitation of a child (§ 18-6-403), human trafficking of a minor for sexual servitude (§ 18-3-504(2)) and internet sexual exploitation of a child (§ 18-3-405.4). 

Five years for the misdemeanors — § 18-3-411(2): “No person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for a misdemeanor offense specified in section 18-3-402 or 18-3-404, unless the indictment, information, complaint, or action for the same is found or instituted within five years after the commission of the offense. The limitation for commencing criminal proceedings and juvenile delinquency proceedings concerning unlawful sexual offenses that are felonies shall be governed by section 16-5-401(1)(a), C.R.S.” Where the victim was under fifteen, § 16-5-401(7) extends a misdemeanor charged under § 18-3-404 by a further three years and six months. 

Everything else: § 16-5-401(1)(a): other felonies, three years; misdemeanors, eighteen months; class 1 and 2 misdemeanor traffic offenses, one year; petty offenses, six months. 

Application  § 16-5-401(1.5): the no-limit rule for sex offenses against children applies to offenses committed on or after 1 July 1996, and to offenses committed before that date if the applicable limitation, as it existed prior to 1 July 2006, had not yet run on 1 July 2006. 

Why “partly removed”: the no-limit rule reaches only unlawful sexual offenses that are felonies. Misdemeanor sexual assault under § 18-3-402 and misdemeanor unlawful sexual contact under § 18-3-404 keep a five-year period, extended by three and a half years where the victim was under fifteen.

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-5-401 — Justia (2024 Colorado Revised Statutes) 

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-3-411 — Justia (2025 Colorado Revised Statutes)

No limitation — § 13-80-103.7(1)(a): “Notwithstanding any other statute of limitations specified in this article 80, or any other provision of law that can be construed to limit the time period to commence an action described in this section, any civil action based on sexual misconduct, including any derivative claim, may be commenced at any time without limitation.” 

But only forward, and only for claims still alive — § 13-80-103.7(1)(b): “This subsection (1) applies to causes of action accruing on or after January 1, 2022, and to causes of action accruing before January 1, 2022, if the applicable statute of limitations, as it existed prior to January 1, 2022, has not yet run on January 1, 2022.” 

How the law got here, as recounted by the Colorado Supreme Court in Aurora Public Schools v. A.S.: until 1990 sexual abuse claims carried a two-year period like other torts; in 1990 the General Assembly lengthened it to six years for civil claims of sexual misconduct, with claims by persons under a disability — including minority — to be brought within six years after the disability was removed or six years after accrual, whichever came later; and in 2021 S.B. 21-073 amended § 13-80-103.7 to remove any limitations period prospectively. 

Why “partly removed”: the elimination is complete going forward, but it does not reach back. A claim whose six-year period had already expired before 1 January 2022 stays barred — and the separate attempt to reach those claims is what the Supreme Court struck down (section 3).

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-103.7 — Justia (2025 Colorado Revised Statutes)

What the Act did — the CSAAA created a statutory cause of action for a victim of sexual misconduct occurring while the victim was a minor participating in a youth-related activity or program, against both the person who committed the abuse and the organization that operated the program where it knew or should have known of the risk. It also waived governmental immunity for claims brought under the Act. The legislature was careful to declare that the Act “does not revive any common law cause of action that is barred” but “instead creates a new right for relief”. 

What the Supreme Court held — the CSAAA violates the retrospectivity clause, Colo. Const. art. II, § 11, because by providing a new statutory right of relief it “necessarily creates a new obligation and attaches a new disability” on those from whom relief can be demanded. The court rejected the argument that a public-policy justification can save an otherwise retrospective law: “there is no ‘public policy exception’ to the ban on retrospective laws in article II, section 11”. 

The limit of the holding — “We do not hold that the CSAAA is unconstitutional in its entirety, or that all claims made under the CSAAA are precluded by the retrospectivity clause. Our holding does not affect claims brought under the CSAAA for which the previously applicable statute of limitations had not run as of January 1, 2022.” The Act is unconstitutional only so far as it reaches conduct predating it for which the previously available causes of action were already time-barred. 

Applied — Wyatt v. Miller, 2023 WL 10352026 (D. Colo., 5 October 2023): a CSAAA claim based on abuse decades earlier was time-barred under the previously applicable limitation, so it had to be dismissed and amendment would be futile. The complaint was dismissed with prejudice. 

The revival status is “None”, and the reason is a court decision rather than the absence of legislation. That distinction matters: the General Assembly did act, and the window it opened was held unconstitutional.

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-103.7 — Justia (2025 Colorado Revised Statutes)

Aurora Public Schools v. A.S., 2023 CO 39, 531 P.3d 1036 (2023): struck the CSAAA revival window under the state retrospectivity clause; revival scored as none.