The Colorado Court of Appeals released three opinions on Thursday, June 25. Below is the summary with a link to the entire opinion.
The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles M. Schmidt, Defendant-Appellant. 2026 COA 52. A division of the court of appeals disagrees with People v. Carian, 2017 COA 106, ¶ 26, which held that forgery under section 18-5-102(1)(d), C.R.S. 2025, applies only to documents filed “pursuant to a legal mandate.” In addition, the division clarifies that the crime of attempt to influence a public servant does not require proof that the public servant had actual authority to act on the matter under consideration. Judgment reversed and case remanded with directions. Read the opinion.
The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jon Claude Crow, Defendant-Appellant. 2026 COA 53. In this direct criminal appeal, a division of the court of appeals considers whether section 18-6.5-102(11)(c), C.R.S. 2025 — which deems an adult with a disability that renders them unable to breathe without mechanical assistance an “at-risk adult” in the context of crimes against at-risk persons — requires the prosecution to prove that the victim’s disability is permanent rather than intermittent. We conclude that the prosecution need not prove that the victim’s disability is permanent; rather, it need only prove that the victim’s disability rendered the victim unable to breathe without mechanical assistance on the date of the offense.
The division also considers whether the trial court erred by using the 2022 model criminal jury instruction on reasonable doubt. The majority follows the analysis set forth in People v. Casey Simms, 2026 COA 51, ¶¶ 15-33, and concludes that the court did not err. The dissent would hold that, consistent with the dissent’s analysis in Casey Simms, ¶¶ 106-112 (Taubman, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), the instruction’s “real possibility” language impermissibly lowered the prosecution’s burden of proof.
Because the majority concludes that the court’s instructions did not lower the prosecution’s burden of proof and that the evidence was sufficient to demonstrate the victim was “at-risk” under section 18-6.5-102(11)(c), the majority affirms the judgment of conviction and the court’s application of the sentence enhancer. Read the opinion.
James Wright; Damages Inc., LLC, a Colorado limited liability company; and And Justice For All, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Daniel Goldstein; Altru-Media LLC, a Colorado limited liability company; and Page 1 Solutions, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, Defendants-Appellees. 2026 COA 54. A division of the court of appeals considers whether, under the Colorado Revised Uniform Arbitration Act (CRUAA), §§ 13-22-201 to -230, C.R.S. 2025, a respondent in an arbitration proceeding waives their right to object to arbitrability based on the absence of an arbitration agreement by participating in the arbitration proceeding for almost a year before objecting to the arbitrator shortly before the arbitration hearing. Based on the CRUAA’s language in section 13-22-223(1)(e), C.R.S. 2025, which requires a party to object to the arbitrator “not later than the beginning of the arbitration hearing,” the division concludes that the respondent didn’t waive his objection. The division disagrees with a prior division’s contrary conclusion in Harper Hofer & Associates, LLC v. Northwest Direct Marketing, Inc., 2014 COA 153, ¶ 28, which held that an objector who participated in the arbitration proceeding waived its objection by failing to seek a judicial stay of the arbitration before the arbitration hearing commenced.
Because the respondent in this case timely objected to the arbitrator as required by statute, the division reverses in part the district court’s order that the respondent waived his objection and remands the case for further findings of fact regarding whether an arbitration agreement existed. The division rejects the appellants’ other contentions and
therefore affirms the judgment in part, reverses it in part, and remands the case with directions. Read the opinion.