People v. Taylor.
2026 COA 50. No. 25CA2151. Serious Bodily Injury—Substantial Risk of Protracted Loss or Impairment—CRS § 18-1-901(3)(p).
June 11, 2026
Taylor is an inmate at a correctional facility. Officer Cerisene went into Taylor’s cell to confiscate a radio that had been playing too loudly. During the encounter, Taylor punched Cerisene’s head and face and put him in a chokehold, which caused Cerisene to lose consciousness. Cerisene’s optometrist completed and signed an “SBI Medical Professional Form” indicating that Cerisene experienced serious bodily injury (SBI) based on a substantial risk of loss or impairment of his left eye. Taylor was charged with multiple crimes in connection with the incident. After a preliminary hearing, the district court issued an order finding that People v. Vigil, 2021 CO 46, ¶ 33, directs that the facts of the injury control whether the prosecution has established SBI, and the prosecution did not establish that the injury actually sustained by Cerisene constituted SBI. The court dismissed all counts containing an SBI element and all crime of violence counts related to the dismissed substantive charges.
On appeal, the People argued that Vigil doesn’t apply because it involved a finding of a substantial risk of death arising from an injury, but Taylor’s charges involve a substantial risk of protracted loss or impairment of the function of a body part or organ. And even if Vigil does apply, the prosecution established probable cause of SBI, so the court erred by dismissing all substantive and crime of violence charges with SBI as an element. The court in Vigil held that the determination of substantial risk is controlled by the actual injury rather than hypothetical or commonly associated risks of the injury. The court of appeals held that Vigil extends to the court’s determination of whether there is probable cause of SBI under CRS § 18-1-901(3)(p) based on a substantial risk of protracted loss or impairment of the function of any body part or organ. Here, the prosecution’s evidence didn’t establish probable cause that Cerisene’s actual injury, traumatic iritis, at the time of the injury or later, carried a substantial risk of protracted loss or impairment to Cerisene’s eye, consistent with the SBI definition. Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion by finding no probable cause of SBI existed and by dismissing all counts containing an SBI element and all crime of violence counts related to the dismissed substantive charges.
The order was affirmed and the case was remanded for further proceedings.