People v. Schmidt.
2026 COA 52. No. 24CA1102. Forgery—Attempt to Influence a Public Servant—Sufficiency of Evidence—Character for Truthfulness.
June 25, 2026
Schmidt was on probation following his assault of a person he was trying to serve in his capacity as a bounty hunter. He allegedly violated his probation terms, which included 50 hours of useful public service. While appearing at a probation revocation resentencing hearing, he submitted a letter to the district court attesting that he had completed the public service hours (the public service letter). But though the public service letter had a Salvation Army logo on it, it did not appear to be on letterhead, and the letter was full of misspellings and punctuation and grammatical errors. The district court questioned the validity of the public service letter but reinstated Schmidt’s probation. The prosecution investigated the matter, concluded that Schmidt had forged the public service letter, and charged Schmidt with attempting to influence a public servant and forgery. At trial, Schmidt’s defense was that he completed his required public service hours and believed that the public service letter was valid proof of having done so. During Schmidt’s trial, the court of appeals issued a decision on his appeal of his probation resentencing, concluding that the district court lacked jurisdiction to revoke Schmidt’s probation and resentence him based on the new offense allegedly committed after his probation had expired. It vacated the district court’s order resentencing him to 60 days in jail and two years of probation. Defense counsel then requested a mistrial on the attempt to influence a public servant and forgery charges. The district court denied the request, and Schmidt was convicted of both charges.
On appeal, Schmidt argued that there was insufficient evidence that he attempted to influence a public servant or commit forgery. He asserted that evidence is sufficient only if the public servant had authority to act for the government. Schmidt did not contest the district court judge’s status as a public servant or challenge the legal conclusion that a defendant does not have to successfully influence a public servant to be convicted of this offense. Rather, he challenged the phrase “concerning any matter which is to be considered or performed by the public servant” in CRS § 18-8-306. He maintained that no evidence could overcome the court’s no-jurisdiction finding because it negated the “matter which is to be considered or performed” element of the offense. First, the phrase “concerning any matter which is to be considered or performed by the public servant” is not a separate element to be proved. The court held for the first time in a published appellate decision that in proving a defendant attempted to influence a public servant about any matter considered or performed by the public servant, the prosecution does not have to prove that the public servant had actual authority to act on the matter under consideration. Here, the prosecution offered evidence that the district court considered the public service letter as a mitigating factor during resentencing. And notwithstanding the subsequent determination that the district court judge lacked jurisdiction over the resentencing hearing, Schmidt presented the judge the forged public service letter intending to affect the decision the judge was actively considering at that time. Accordingly, there was substantial and sufficient evidence to support a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that Schmidt is guilty of attempting to influence a public servant.
Schmidt also argued that there was insufficient evidence to prove forgery because the public service letter lacked the necessary “legal efficacy” to come within the forgery definition and did not fall into any of the defined categories of written instruments within subsection (1)(d) of the forgery statute, CRS § 18-5-102(1)(d). Under subsection (1)(d), a written instrument must be (1) a public record or (2) an instrument filed or required by law to be filed or legally fileable in or with a public office or public servant. The court concluded that the public service letter was an instrument that was legally fileable with a public servant because there was no legal impediment to Schmidt submitting the public service letter to the court for inclusion in the court file. Therefore, there was sufficient evidence to convict Schmidt of forgery.
Schmidt further contended that the trial court erred by refusing to allow any witnesses to testify about his character for truthfulness. One element of the crime of attempt to influence a public servant is influencing any public servant “by means of deceit,” and Schmidt’s forgery charge required proof of Schmidt’s intent to defraud and his act of tendering a false document. And to defraud is to act by deceit. Because deceit is central to both attempting to influence a public servant and forgery, Schmidt’s alleged truthfulness was a pertinent trait, and he should have been permitted to offer evidence of that character trait. The trial court thus abused its discretion in disallowing Schmidt’s requests to call three witnesses to present evidence of Schmidt’s truthful character. Further, the error was not harmless because it interfered with Schmidt’s ability to mount a defense.
The judgment of conviction was reversed and the case was remanded for a new trial.