In this opinion, the Supreme Court considered whether an individual who receives food stamp benefits to which she is not legally entitled is properly prosecuted under CRS § 18-4-401 or CRS § 26-2-305(1)(a). The Court held that, based on the plain language of § 26-2-305(1)(a), the legislature did not create a separate crime when it enacted that section. Thus, when an individual violates § 26-2-305(1)(a), he or she may properly be prosecuted under the general theft statute, § 18-4-401. Accordingly, the Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision and remanded the case with instructions to return the case to the trial court to reinstate the judgment of conviction.

In this case, the Supreme Court concluded that the Court of Appeals erred by broadly suggesting that a defendant can be held criminally liable as a complicitor in money laundering if the evidence at trial merely suggests complicity in the principal’s overall operation. The proper standard for assessing whether a defendant may be found liable as a complicitor, set forth in People v. Childress, 2017 CO 65M, 363 P.3d 155, requires a determination of the requisite elements of the principal’s offense. Nonetheless, there is sufficient evidence in the record to support defendant’s convictions. The Court of Appeals’ judgment was affirmed.