Background
Police responded to a custody dispute that resulted in the arrest of a child’s mother. Steven Chopper Rustemeyer, the mother’s friend, objected to the arrest and told officers that if they were taking her to jail, they were taking him too.
As officers moved the mother toward a patrol vehicle, Rustemeyer lunged toward them. His shoulder struck an officer in the chest and knocked the mother to the ground. A jury convicted him of attempted second degree assault on a peace officer and obstructing a peace officer.
The Court’s Holding
The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that the trial court’s supplemental response to the jury’s question about assault did not omit an intent element. The response required the jury to find that Rustemeyer acted with intent to prevent a known or reasonably known peace officer from performing a lawful duty and with intent to cause bodily injury, while taking a substantial step toward second degree assault.
The division also rejected Rustemeyer’s challenge to the 2023 model reasonable-doubt instruction. Binding Colorado Supreme Court precedent had already upheld the instruction’s “firmly convinced” and “real possibility” language. The court further concluded that the instruction did not become deficient by omitting “hesitate to act” language or by stating that proof must exceed high probability but need not reach absolute certainty.
Key Takeaways
- Attempted second degree assault requires the same relevant culpable mental states as the completed assault offense.
- A supplemental instruction need not repeat a separate, third intent requirement when it accurately states the two intents required for the underlying assault.
- The 2023 Colorado model reasonable-doubt instruction remains constitutionally sufficient under controlling state precedent.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that courts may answer jury questions by restating the operative mental-state requirements in a clearer form, so long as the response accurately conveys each required element.
It also applies recent Colorado Supreme Court authority approving the current reasonable-doubt formulation, limiting challenges based on its “firmly convinced,” “real possibility,” and omitted “hesitate to act” language.