Douglas County prosecutors had no basis to pursue charges of identity theft and unauthorized use of a financial device against a woman in New York whose conduct occurred entirely outside of Colorado, the state’s second-highest court ruled on Thursday.

Erin Brennan and her children lived in New York and her ex-husband moved to Colorado after their divorce. In 2022, she proposed a budget for sending their children to summer camp, but her ex-husband balked at the expense. Months later, he noticed a charge in excess of $10,000 on his credit card statement. Brennan had authorized Camp Ramaquois in New York to charge a partial payment of camp expenses to the card, which was already on file from the prior year.

Brennan’s ex-husband reported the charge to law enforcement and prosecutors initiated criminal proceedings against Brennan. A jury convicted her in 2023 and she received a prison sentence of one year, which was suspended on the condition that she pay a fine and restitution and attend a victim empathy class.

Prior to trial, the defense argued Colorado had no authority to prosecute Brennan because no part of her alleged crimes occurred in Colorado.

“Had the Colorado legislature desired that ‘where the victim resides during all or part of the offense’ to be a basis for jurisdiction,” wrote attorney Christopher W. Carr, “it certainly could have included the same language in the jurisdiction statute.”

Then-District Court Judge Patricia Herron denied the motion to dismiss without explanation. At trial, the defense renewed its motion, but Christopher J. Munch, a retired judge assigned to take over the case, determined there was a “sufficient nexus” to Colorado because the victim was located in-state.

To a three-judge Court of Appeals panel, the government argued Brennan “received notice from Colorado” from her ex-husband that he objected to his card being used to pay for the camp. By acting anyway, she commited a crime “at least partly” in Colorado.

“She was in New York when she did that,” responded Judge Katharine E. Lum during oral arguments. “I’m still having a hard time understanding why her sending the email is conduct that is part of an element of this crime.”

“Let’s say the person’s located in Moscow,” added Judge Lino S. Lipinsky de Orlov. “And the person through the dark web gets this credit card information and finds out this is a Colorado resident, and uses that card without authorization. Are you saying a Colorado court can exercise jurisdiction on that person?”

Ultimately, the panel agreed with Brennan, noting Colorado courts only have jurisdiction over conduct “wholly or partly within the state.”

“We conclude that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Brennan’s prosecution because none of her conduct forming a material element of either offense occurred in Colorado,” wrote Lipinsky in the July 24 opinion.

He elaborated it “is of no consequence” that the credit card used was in Colorado because it was already on file with Camp Ramaquois in New York when Brennan charged it.

The panel overturned her convictions and ordered dismissal of the criminal charges.

The case is People v. Brennan.