The Colorado Court of Appeals released one opinion on Monday, June 18. Below is the summary with a link to the entire opinion.
The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Casey Simms, Defendant-Appellant. 2026 COA 51. In this direct criminal appeal, a division of the court of appeals considers the novel issue of whether a fist can be a “bludgeon” or “simulated bludgeon” under section 18-3-206, C.R.S. 2025, the felony menacing statute.
The majority on this issue (Moultrie and Taubman, JJ.) concludes that, as a matter of law, a fist cannot be a “bludgeon” or “simulated bludgeon” under the felony menacing statute because that interpretation is inconsistent with the statutory scheme, unsupported by the case law on which the People rely, and contrary to the statute’s recent legislative history. The majority thus concludes that the trial court erred when, in response to a jury deliberation question, the court declined to clarify that a fist cannot be a bludgeon or simulated bludgeon and that, under the circumstances, the court’s error was not harmless. Accordingly, the majority reverses the defendant’s felony menacing conviction. The dissent on this issue (Bernard, J.) concludes that while the plain and ordinary meaning of the word “bludgeon” does not include a fist, the trial court properly instructed the jury to give “bludgeon” its “ordinary meaning.”
The division also considers whether the trial court erred by using the 2022 model criminal jury instruction on reasonable doubt. The majority on this issue (Moultrie and Bernard, JJ.)
concludes that, consistent with the reasoning articulated by other divisions of this court in People v. Melara, 2025 COA 48, People v. Schlehuber, 2025 COA 50, and People v. Berumen, 2025 COA 93, the court did not err. The dissent on this issue (Taubman, J.)
would hold that the instruction’s “real possibility” language impermissibly lowered the prosecution’s burden of proof.
Finally, the division considers the defendant’s challenge to the court’s award of restitution. Because the division concludes that the findings supporting the court’s restitution award are insufficient, the division vacates the award and remands for further proceedings regarding the determination of restitution. Read the opinion.