The Colorado Supreme Court recently announced that it will decide whether Douglas County prosecutors had grounds to pursue criminal charges against a woman in New York whose conduct occurred outside of Colorado.

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 to send their children to summer camp, but her ex-husband balked at the cost. Months later, he noticed a charge of more than $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. A jury convicted her in 2023 for unauthorized use of a financial device and identity theft. Brennan received a suspended prison sentence, on the condition that she pay a fine and restitution and attend a victim empathy class.

Prior to trial, the defense argued that Colorado lacked authority to prosecute Brennan because no part of her alleged crimes occurred “wholly or partly within the state,” as Colorado law requires.

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 in-state.

To a three-judge Court of Appeals panel, the government argued that 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 committed a crime “at least partly” in Colorado.

“She was in New York when she did that,” responded Judge Katharine E. Lum during oral arguments.

Ultimately, the panel agreed with Brennan that her prosecution was improper.

“Thus, her unlawful use of a financial device involved calling the camp and telling it to use a credit card it already had on file — conduct that solely occurred in New York,” wrote Judge Lino S. Lipinsky de Orlov.

The government turned to the Supreme Court, arguing the circumstances of Brennan’s alleged crimes had Colorado connections, such as her email to her Colorado-based ex-husband.

The Court of Appeals’ decision “unreasonably limits prosecutors’ ability to charge out-of-state actors who target Coloradans, particularly for financial crimes and identity theft,” argued Trina K. Kissel of the Colorado Attorney General’s Office.

The Supreme Court will address the issue.

The case is People v. Brennan.