COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2017COA95

Court of Appeals No. 16CA1337 

Montrose County District Court No. 16CV30022 

Honorable J. Steven Patrick, Judge 

Dan W. Hotsenpiller, District Attorney, Seventh Judicial District, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

Honorable Bennet A. Morris, a Judge of the County Court for the County of 

Montrose, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

JUDGMENT REVERSED AND CASE 

REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS 

Division A 

Opinion by CHIEF JUDGE LOEB 

Plank* and Márquez*, JJ., concur 

Announced July 13, 2017 

Dan W. Hotsenpiller, District Attorney, Barbara J. Sanford, Assistant District 

Attorney, Montrose, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellant 

Cynthia H. Coffman, Attorney General, Grant T. Sullivan, Assistant Solicitor 

General, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellee 

*Sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice under provisions of Colo. Const. art. 

VI, § 5(3), and § 24-51-1105, C.R.S. 2016.
1 

¶ 1 In this C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) action, the District Attorney of 

Montrose County, Dan W. Hotsenpiller (District Attorney), appeals 

the district court’s order upholding the ruling of Montrose County 

Court Judge Bennet A. Morris (county court), which concluded that 

the affirmative defense of consent was available to John Hartsuff in 

his criminal case on the charge of violation of a civil protection 

order (CPO). 

¶ 2 The sole issue on appeal is whether the affirmative defense of 

consent, as defined in the consent statute, section 18-1-505, C.R.S. 

2016, is available to a defendant who is criminally charged with 

violating a protection order, pursuant to section 18-6-803.5, C.R.S. 

2016. As a matter of first impression, we conclude that the county 

court abused its discretion by ruling that Hartsuff could assert the 

affirmative defense of consent, because the court misinterpreted the 

law regarding CPOs and language in the consent statute that allows 

the defense when the alleged assent of the victim “precludes the 

infliction of the harm or evil sought to be prevented by the law 

defining the offense,” § 18-1-505(1). Accordingly, we reverse the 

district court’s order upholding the county court’s ruling and 
2 

remand with directions for the district court to remand the case to 

the county court with instructions to proceed with Hartsuff’s trial 

and to preclude the affirmative defense of consent on the charge of 

violation of a protection order. 

I. Background and Procedural History 

A. Alleged Violation of a CPO 

¶ 3 J.C. obtained a temporary CPO against her ex-boyfriend, 

Hartsuff. The county court made the CPO “permanent” in May 

2015. § 13-14-106, C.R.S. 2016. 

¶ 4 The CPO issued in this case was on JDF Form 399. JDF 399, 

Permanent Civil Protection Order Issued Pursuant to § 13-14-106, 

C.R.S. (revised Sept. 2013), https://perma.cc/CUR5-9HP8. The 

form order lists Hartsuff as the restrained person and J.C. as the 

protected person. The order states that the restrained person 

constitutes a credible threat to the life and health of the protected 

person and that sufficient cause exists for the issuance of the CPO. 

A warning then appears, in a box and in large print, stating as 

follows: “This Protection Order DOES NOT EXPIRE and only the Court 

can change this Order. A violation of a Protection Order is a crime 

and may be prosecuted . . . pursuant to § 18-6-803.5, C.R.S.” (Here 
3 

and for all subsequent quotes to JDF 399, original bold emphasis 

has been changed to italics.) 

¶ 5 The CPO declares that “[i]t is ordered that you, the Restrained 

Person, shall have no contact of any kind with the Protected 

Person[]” and explicitly states that there are no exceptions to 

contact. The CPO further orders Hartsuff to stay at least one 

hundred yards away from J.C.’s home and work. 

¶ 6 The final page of the CPO informs the parties of “IMPORTANT 

INFORMATION ABOUT PROTECTION ORDERS.” As relevant here, 

this page includes a notice to the protected person that he or she 

“cannot give the Restrained Person permission to change or ignore 

this Order in any way. Only the Court can change this order.” 

Similarly, the restrained person is notified that if he or she 

“violate[s] this Order thinking that the other party or anyone else 

has given you permission, you are wrong, and can be arrested and 

prosecuted. The terms of this Order cannot be changed by 

agreement of the parties. Only the Court can change this Order.” 
4 

¶ 7 In July 2015, J.C. called police and stated that Hartsuff was 

on her front porch1 threatening her. She told the dispatcher that 

there was a CPO in place prohibiting Hartsuff from contacting her. 

Before police arrived, Hartsuff left the premises on foot. In addition 

to reporting the contact at her home, J.C. showed the responding 

officer text messages and logs of phone calls from Hartsuff over the 

previous two days. In the affidavit for Hartsuff’s warrantless arrest, 

the responding officer noted that J.C. had texted Hartsuff several 

times, asking him to leave her alone, and that Hartsuff called J.C.’s 

phone while police were on the way to her home. Dispatch 

confirmed the existence of the CPO, and Hartsuff was arrested at a 

nearby intersection by officers patrolling the area. 

¶ 8 Hartsuff was charged with harassment and violation of a 

protection order, both as acts of domestic violence. 

 

1 The address listed for J.C.’s home in the CPO is the address to 

which police responded for the incident that gave rise to the charges 

here. 
5 

B. County Court Criminal Proceedings 

¶ 9 In his preliminary notice of endorsements, Hartsuff raised the 

affirmative defense of consent.2 At a pretrial hearing, the 

prosecution objected to Hartsuff’s endorsed consent defense as 

applied to the charge of violation of a protection order. At the 

hearing, defense counsel argued that, under section 18-1-505, 

J.C.’s alleged assent3 to contact precluded the infliction of the harm 

the violation of a protection order statute was attempting to prevent 

— namely, contact between the restrained person and the protected 

person. Counsel argued that the purpose of the violation of a 

protection order statute was not to protect the court’s order, but 

only to protect the protected person. He also asserted that 

precluding the defense of consent would create an untenable 

situation where the protected person could approach the restrained 

 

2 Neither the preliminary endorsement nor the transcript of the later 

pretrial conference lists any specific evidence of J.C.’s alleged 

consent. The endorsement also does not state to which charge 

Hartsuff asserted the defense of consent. 

3 In this opinion, the term “consent” refers only to the statutory 

definition of the consent defense. “Assent” refers to the alleged 

conduct of the victim that purportedly renders the consent defense 

applicable. Here, Hartsuff alleged that J.C. assented to the contact 

with which he was charged under the violation of a protection order 

statute. 
6 

person and initiate contact, and the restrained person then could 

be charged with a violation of the protection order. 

¶ 10 The prosecution responded that a protected person cannot 

consent to allow another person — even the restrained person — to 

violate a court order. 

¶ 11 The county court ruled that the affirmative defense of consent 

was available to Hartsuff because J.C.’s alleged assent “preclude[d] 

the infliction of the harm or evil sought to be prevented” by the 

violation of the protection order statute — specifically, unwanted 

contact. § 18-1-505(1). In its written order, the court quoted the 

consent statute and then reasoned as follows: 

The [CPO] was put into place . . . at the 

request of the protected person – now the 

alleged victim in this case. That person did 

not desire contact or proximity with [Hartsuff]. 

The Court finds that the affirmative defense of 

consent of the alleged victim to contact or 

proximity with [Hartsuff], would preclude the 

infliction of the harm sought to be prevented 

by a protection order originally put in place at 

the request of the victim/protected person, at 

least in part, to prevent such contact or 

proximity. 

Consequently, the court concluded that the affirmative defense of 

consent was available to Hartsuff and that the prosecution was, 
7 

therefore, required to disprove J.C.’s consent beyond a reasonable 

doubt in addition to proving the statutory elements of violation of a 

protection order. 

C. C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) Review in the District Court 

¶ 12 The District Attorney then sought judicial review of the county 

court’s order in the district court pursuant to C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4). 

¶ 13 On review, the district court framed the question as “whether 

or not the [county] court’s determination to permit the affirmative 

defense of consent to the violation of a civil protection order at trial 

is an abuse of discretion.” The district court reasoned that neither 

the consent statute nor the statute regarding the charged offense of 

violation of a protection order expressly prohibited consent as an 

affirmative defense. It concluded that the District Attorney had 

failed to show that the county court abused its discretion and, thus, 

remanded the case to the county court to proceed with trial. 

¶ 14 The District Attorney now appeals the district court’s order 

affirming the county court’s decision to allow Hartsuff to assert the 
8 

affirmative defense of consent to the charge of violation of a 

protection order.4 

II. Standard of Review 

¶ 15 Under C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4), our review is “limited to a 

determination of whether the [governmental] body or officer has 

exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion, based on the 

evidence in the record before the defendant body or officer.” 

C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4)(I). 

¶ 16 A reviewing court may reverse the decision of a lower judicial 

body for an abuse of discretion if the reviewing court finds that the 

lower body acted “arbitrarily or capriciously, made a decision that is 

unsupported by the record, erroneously interpreted the law, or 

exceeded its authority.” Nixon v. City & Cty. of Denver, 2014 COA 

172, ¶ 12 (citing Lawley v. Dep’t of Higher Educ., 36 P.3d 1239, 

1245 (Colo. 2001)). In an appeal involving a C.R.C.P. 106 action, 

the appellate court sits in the same position as the district court in 

reviewing the county court’s decision. Shupe v. Boulder Cty., 230 

P.3d 1269, 1272 (Colo. App. 2010). We are, therefore, limited to 

 

4 In this appeal, the Attorney General represents Judge Morris and 

defends the county court’s order. 
9 

reviewing whether the county court abused its discretion in ruling 

that the consent defense was available to Hartsuff. Id.; see also

Alpenhof, LLC v. City of Ouray, 2013 COA 9, ¶ 9. 

¶ 17 In addition, we review a governmental officer’s interpretation of 

the law de novo. Treece, Alfrey, Musat & Bosworth, PC v. Dep’t of 

Fin., 298 P.3d 993, 996 (Colo. App. 2011) (citing Van Sickle v. 

Boyes, 797 P.2d 1267, 1274 (Colo. 1990)). Here, we are reviewing 

de novo a judicial body’s interpretation and application of Colorado 

statutes and, thus, we do not owe the county court deference in our 

application of the ordinary rules of statutory construction. See 

Alpenhof, LLC, ¶ 10. 

¶ 18 Our primary task in interpreting a statute is to give effect to 

the General Assembly’s intent by first examining the statute’s plain 

language. E.g., Stanley v. Dist. Attorney, 2017 COA 33, ¶ 10. “To 

discern the General Assembly’s intent, we look to the plain 

language of the statute, and where that language is clear and 

unambiguous, we engage in no further statutory analysis.” People 

v. Rice, 2015 COA 168, ¶ 11. 

¶ 19 If we determine that the relevant statute is unambiguous, we 

give effect to the statute’s plain and ordinary meaning without 
10 

resorting to other rules of statutory construction. See, e.g., St. 

Vrain Valley Sch. Dist. RE-1J v. A.R.L., 2014 CO 33, ¶ 11. If, 

however, the statutory language lends itself to alternative 

constructions and its intended scope is ambiguous or unclear, we 

then look to the statute’s context, legislative history, prior law, the 

consequences of a given construction, and the goal of the statutory 

scheme. Suncor Energy (USA), Inc. v. Aspen Petroleum Prods., Inc., 

178 P.3d 1263, 1266 (Colo. App. 2007). 

¶ 20 Statutes should not be read in isolation, but together with all 

other statutes relating to the same subject or having the same 

general purpose, to the end that a statute’s intent may be 

ascertained and absurd consequences avoided. Huddleston v. Bd. 

of Equalization, 31 P.3d 155, 159 (Colo. 2001). “This is especially 

true where a statute intimates by its plain language an intent to 

incorporate other statutory provisions.” Id. 

¶ 21 If we determine that a statute is ambiguous, we may also 

consider legislative declarations in determining the General 

Assembly’s intent. § 2-4-203(1)(g), C.R.S. 2016. Legislative 

declarations included with the statutory scheme at issue may be 

relevant in determining the intent of the General Assembly and the 
11 

problems it was attempting to address. See Lester v. Career Bldg. 

Acad., 2014 COA 88, ¶¶ 25-27. Indeed, “[o]ften the best guides to 

legislative intent are the context in which the statutory provisions 

appear and any accompanying statements of legislative policy, such 

as a legislative declaration.” A.R.L., ¶ 11. 

¶ 22 Specific to this case, “[t]he question of whether consent can 

constitute a defense to a crime is best analyzed in the context of 

particular offenses and particular conduct.” Model Penal Code § 

2.11 note 1 on General Principles (Am. Law Inst., Official Draft and 

Revised Comments 1985) (hereinafter MPC).5 

III. Relevant Statutes 

¶ 23 This case hinges on the county court’s interpretation of the 

consent statute and the violation of a protection order statute, 

 

5 Colorado’s consent statute is based largely on the Model Penal 

Code. Model Penal Code § 2.11 note 12 (Am. Law Inst., Official 

Draft and Revised Comments 1985) (listing Colorado’s section 18-1-

505, C.R.S. 2016, as one of the provisions similar to Model Penal 

Code § 2.11) (hereinafter MPC). Additionally, the MPC definition of 

consent is located in the “General Principles of Liability” article, 

similar to the Colorado statute’s location in the “Provisions 

Applicable to Offenses Generally” article. § 18-1-505; MPC § 2.11. 

Significantly, the language in section 18-1-505 regarding “precludes 

the infliction of the harm or evil sought to be prevented” by the 

criminal offense is identical to MPC section 2.11. Thus, we refer to 

the MPC and its commentary for guidance on the meaning of the 

consent statute. 
12 

sections 18-1-505 and 18-6-803.5, respectively. In addition to 

these statutes, we must also consider the CPO statutes because the 

violation of a protection order statute specifically references and 

incorporates title 13, article 14 in the definition for “protection 

order,” and Hartsuff’s charge is based on a CPO issued pursuant to 

section 13-14-106. § 18-6-803.5(1.5)(a.5)(I)(A). 

A. The Consent Statute 

¶ 24 Under section 18-1-505, the defense of consent of the victim is 

not available to any crime unless “the consent negatives an element 

of the offense or precludes the infliction of the harm or evil sought 

to be prevented by the law defining the offense.” § 18-1-505(1). The 

statute also lists certain situations in which the victim’s assent 

does not constitute a consent unless the criminal code or the law 

defining the offense specifically provides otherwise. § 18-1-505(3). 

These situations include, for example, where assent is given by a 

person whose consent is sought to be prevented by the law defining 

the offense. § 18-1-505(3)(c). The General Assembly has 
13 

characterized the defense of consent as an affirmative defense.6 

§ 18-1-505(4). 

¶ 25 Colorado case law interpreting the consent statute and its 

applicability is very sparse and limited in scope. All appellate 

Colorado cases regarding consent concern the language of the 

statute relating to negating an element of the offense or, in one 

case, lack of legal authority to consent, and almost all deal with 

consent in the context of sexual assault. See, e.g., Oram v. People, 

255 P.3d 1032 (Colo. 2011) (stating consent negates elements of 

burglary, but instruction not warranted because party consenting 

to entry did not have authority to consent); People v. Martinez, 36 

P.3d 154 (Colo. App. 2001) (finding that in sexual assault context, 

affirmative defense of consent instruction not warranted because 

elements of sexual assault only allow conviction if victim did not 

consent); People v. Bush, 948 P.2d 16 (Colo. App. 1997) (negating 

elements of theft); People v. Williams, 899 P.2d 306 (Colo. App. 

 

6 An affirmative defense admits the defendant’s commission of the 

elements of the crime charged, but seeks to justify the act. People 

v. Nelson, 2014 COA 165, ¶ 48. Availability of an affirmative 

defense means that the defense becomes an element of the offense 

and the court must instruct the jury that the prosecution has the 

burden of disproving the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable 

doubt. Id. at ¶ 49. 
14 

1995) (negating an element of offense in sexual assault). The 

parties have not cited any Colorado case, and we have found none, 

concerning the applicability of the consent defense when the alleged 

assent “precludes the infliction of the harm or evil sought to be 

prevented by the law defining the offense.”7 § 18-1-505(1). 

¶ 26 For the reasons below, we conclude that the clause at issue in 

this case (“precludes the infliction of the harm or evil sought to be 

prevented by the law defining the offense”) is ambiguous because it 

is unclear and subject to alternative constructions. The Attorney 

General argues that the phrase means only the harm to the alleged 

victim, here, J.C. As a result, the Attorney General contends that 

the county court was correct in defining the harm or evil sought to 

be prevented by the violation of a protection order statute as simply 

contact between the protected and restrained persons. On the 

other hand, the District Attorney asserts that the crime at issue 

here is designed to enforce a court order and that, in determining 

 

7 The model jury instruction and its comments regarding consent 

are equally silent on the meaning of this language. COLJI-Crim. 

H:03 (2016). The comments to the instruction address only the 

situation where assent of the victim negates an element of the 

offense charged; the language of the instruction seems to leave 

defining the harm sought to be prevented by the law defining the 

offense to the parties and the court in drafting the instructions. Id. 
15 

the harm sought to be prevented, we must both consider the 

context of the violation of a protection order statute and the General 

Assembly’s intent with regard to crimes of domestic violence. 

According to the District Attorney, then, the harm or evil sought to 

be prevented by the violation of a protection order statute is broader 

than simply contact between the protected and restrained persons 

and includes preserving the integrity of a court order and 

preventing domestic violence. 

¶ 27 In our view, the language at issue thus lends itself to 

alternative constructions, and the intended scope of the consent 

statute is unclear with respect to the “harm or evil” language. 

Suncor Energy (USA), Inc., 178 P.3d at 1266. Indeed, the consent 

statute explicitly requires us to consider other statutes in 

determining the potential applicability of the defense. Huddleston, 

31 P.3d at 159.

¶ 28 Thus, we disagree with the county court to the extent it 

determined that the phrase “precludes the infliction of the harm or 

evil sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense” is 

unambiguous. Because we determine that the phrase is 

ambiguous, id.; Suncor Energy (USA), Inc., 178 P.3d at 1266, we 
16 

must look to the legislative history, consequences of a given 

construction, and goals of the relevant statutes. Suncor Energy 

(USA), Inc., 178 P.3d at 1266. We must also consider the entire 

statutory scheme relating to the offense of violation of a protection 

order to give effect and meaning to all its parts. Wolford v. Pinnacol 

Assurance, 107 P.3d 947, 951 (Colo. 2005). 

B. Criminal Statutes Regarding Violation of a Protection Order 

¶ 29 A person commits the crime of violation of a protection order 

if, after the person has been personally served 

with a protection order that identifies the 

person as a restrained person . . . , the person: 

(a) Contacts, harasses, injures, intimidates, 

molests, threatens, or touches the protected 

person or protected property . . . identified in 

the protection order or enters or remains on 

premises or comes within a specified distance 

of the protected person, protected property . . . 

or premises . . . . 

§ 18-6-803.5(1)(a). 

¶ 30 The definition of “protection order” is central to this offense 

and includes all protection orders issued pursuant to article 14 of 

title 13 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, the statutes governing 

CPOs. § 18-6-803.5(1.5)(a.5)(I)(A). The statute also includes 
17 

protection orders issued in domestic relations and criminal cases.8 

§ 18-6-803.5(1.5)(a.5)(I)(A), (B). 

¶ 31 Putting the offense into its statutory context, violation of a 

protection order appears in article 6 of the Criminal Code, “Offenses 

Involving the Family Relations,” specifically, in part 8, titled 

“Domestic Violence.” 

¶ 32 The Attorney General asserts that, because the violation of a 

protection order statute does not specifically preclude the 

affirmative defense of consent, the defense should apply since the 

consent statute is “applicable to offenses generally.” See § 18-1-505 

(article 1 of the Criminal Code is titled “Provisions Applicable to 

Offenses Generally”). This reasoning does not comport with the 

plain language of the consent statute or the structure of the 

Criminal Code in general. 

 

8 We reject the Attorney General’s argument that, because the order 

here was a CPO and not a mandatory protection order issued in a 

criminal case, assertion of the consent defense is somehow more 

appropriate because the CPO was sought by a private individual as 

opposed to the government. The offense statute makes no such 

distinction. The only difference between a protection order issued 

in a criminal proceeding and a CPO is that violation of a criminal 

protection order is a class 1 misdemeanor as opposed to a class 2 

misdemeanor. § 18-6-803.5(2)(a), C.R.S. 2016. This difference is 

irrelevant to the question whether the affirmative defense of consent 

is available for the crime of violation of a protection order. 
18 

¶ 33 The premise of the consent statute is that consent is not an 

available defense; the only exceptions are when consent would 

negate an element or when consent would preclude the infliction of 

the harm or evil sought to be prevented by the law defining the 

criminal offense. § 18-1-505(1); Williams, 899 P.2d at 309 (“[T]he 

statutory definition of consent expresses the clear legislative 

decision to make the defense inapplicable unless the consent either 

‘negatives’ an element of the charged offense or precludes the 

infliction of the harm sought to be prevented by the law defining the 

offense.”). Thus, the starting point for Colorado criminal offenses is 

that consent is not available as a defense.9 

¶ 34 Additionally, the structure and language of statutes defining 

criminal offenses belie the Attorney General’s argument. For 

offenses where consent of the victim is a defense, such as sexual 

assault, the statute does not explicitly state consent is a defense. 

§ 18-3-402, C.R.S. 2016. Instead, the statutory elements of those 

crimes necessarily “negate[] the existence of the victim’s 

consent. . . . The[] acts of the defendant cause the victim to be 

 

9 This is a notable difference between the Colorado statute and MPC 

§ 2.11. 
19 

unable to consent.” Dunton v. People, 898 P.2d 571, 573 (Colo. 

1995) (regarding § 18-3-402). Similarly, the homicide and sex 

assault on a child statutes, the quintessential offenses where assent 

of the victim is not a defense, do not specifically preclude consent as 

a defense. §§ 18-3-101 to 18-3-107, 18-3-405, C.R.S. 2016. In 

short, Colorado criminal statutes do not routinely include or 

exclude available defenses, and the omission here of a reference to 

consent is irrelevant. 

¶ 35 What is relevant to determining whether consent is an 

available defense is the context of the offense charged and the 

particular conduct prohibited. MPC § 2.11 note 1 on General 

Principles. Thus, we next consider the statutory framework 

regarding CPOs. 

C. Statutes on CPOs 

¶ 36 The type of protection order Hartsuff is accused of violating is 

a CPO governed by title 13, article 14 of the Colorado Revised 

Statutes. § 18-6-803.5(1.5)(a.5)(I)(A). Title 13 governs the 

administration, organization, and procedures of Colorado courts. 

§§ 13-1-101 to 13-92-104, C.R.S. 2016 (titled “Courts and Court 
20 

Procedure”). Article 14 outlines the procedures for obtaining a CPO. 

§§ 13-14-100.2 to 13-14-110, C.R.S. 2016. 

¶ 37 The county court issued a permanent CPO restraining 

Hartsuff pursuant to section 13-14-106. Once a court determines 

that the restrained person “has committed acts constituting 

grounds for issuance of a [CPO] and that unless restrained will 

continue to commit such acts or acts designed to intimidate or 

retaliate against the protected person, the judge or magistrate shall” 

enter a permanent CPO. § 13-14-106(1)(a). The issuing court must 

inform the restrained person that violation of the CPO constitutes a 

criminal offense pursuant to section 18-6-803.5 or contempt of 

court. Id. 

¶ 38 The court issuing the CPO “retains jurisdiction to enforce, 

modify, or dismiss” the CPO. § 13-14-108(4), C.R.S. 2016. A 

protected person can apply to the court at any time for modification 

or dismissal of a CPO. § 13-14-108(2)(a). In addition, the 

restrained person may also apply for modification or dismissal 

under limited circumstances. § 13-14-108(2)(b). The court is 

required to hear any motion for modification filed under subsection 

(2), and it must consider numerous factors in deciding whether to 
21 

modify or dismiss the CPO. § 13-14-108(5), (6). The sole means 

prescribed in the statute for modifying or dismissing a CPO are 

through the court. 

IV. A Protected Person’s Alleged Assent does not Constitute 

Consent Under Section 18-1-505 

¶ 39 The parties agree that the issue whether consent can be an 

affirmative defense to violation of a protection order is an issue of 

first impression in Colorado. Moreover, as previously mentioned, 

Colorado appellate courts have considered the consent defense in 

very few contexts, and there is little case law interpreting the 

language of the consent statute. But, because Colorado’s consent 

statute is based on MPC section 2.11, the MPC commentaries and 

annotations are instructive. We also find persuasive cases from 

other states that have considered whether the affirmative defense of 

consent may be asserted in the context of a criminal charge for 

violation of a protection order. 

¶ 40 For the reasons below, we conclude that the county court 

erred as a matter of law in allowing the affirmative defense of 

consent for the crime of violation of a protection order. 
22 

A. A CPO is an Order of the Court 

¶ 41 We first conclude that, because the CPO is an order of the 

court and not an order issued by the protected person, the 

protected person’s alleged assent to contact cannot, as a matter of 

law, constitute a restrained party’s defense to the crime for violation 

of a protection order. 

¶ 42 In Colorado, a court has the power to “compel obedience to its 

lawful . . . orders.” § 13-1-114(1)(c), C.R.S. 2016. Court orders are 

crucial to the administration of justice. Indeed, “[t]he orderly and 

expeditious administration of justice by the courts requires that ‘an 

order issued by a court with jurisdiction over the subject matter 

and person must be obeyed by the parties until it is reversed by 

orderly and proper proceedings.’” Maness v. Meyers, 419 U.S. 449, 

459 (1975) (emphasis added) (quoting United States v. United Mine 

Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 293 (1947)) (in the context of contempt 

proceedings). The CPO at issue here specifically stated that the 

court had jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter. 

Thus, it must be obeyed by Hartsuff until it expired or was changed 

“by orderly and proper proceedings.” Id.
23 

¶ 43 As to expiration, the CPO here is a “permanent” CPO issued 

pursuant to section 13-14-106. The word “permanent” is not 

defined in section 13-14-106 or in the definitions section of article 

14, section 13-14-101, C.R.S. 2016; nor does the statute state a 

duration for the permanent protection order. However, the CPO 

here explicitly emphasized that the order did not expire. Moreover, 

“where, as here, the statute does not define a term, the word at 

issue is a term of common usage, and people of ordinary 

intelligence need not guess at its meaning, we may refer to 

dictionary definitions in determining the plain and ordinary 

meaning.” Roalstad v. City of Lafayette, 2015 COA 146, ¶ 34 

(quoting Mendoza v. Pioneer Gen. Ins. Co., 2014 COA 29, ¶ 24). 

Giving the word “permanent” its plain and ordinary meaning, this 

order was perpetual and intended to be continuing or enduring 

without change. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of 

the English Language, Unabridged 1683 (1993). Thus, this CPO 

was perpetual and remained in effect until the court modified or 

dismissed it. 

¶ 44 Section 13-14-108 lays out the only procedures for modifying 

or dismissing a CPO. A protected person may petition the court to 
24 

modify or dismiss the order at any time; a restrained person can file 

a motion after the protection order has been in place for two years. 

§ 13-14-108(2)(a), (b). Importantly, no statutory mechanism exists 

for the protected person or the restrained person to modify or 

dismiss the order without the court’s approval or consideration. 

Indeed, the issuing court retains jurisdiction to enforce, modify, or 

dismiss a CPO, and it is required to consider a long list of factors 

when determining whether to modify or dismiss the CPO. § 13-14-

108(4)-(6). Additionally, the CPO itself warned both Hartsuff and 

J.C. multiple times in emphasized font that only the court could 

modify or dismiss the order and the parties could not agree to 

change the terms of the order. 

¶ 45 We emphasize these avenues for modification because 

Hartsuff’s defense, that J.C. consented to the contact and, thus, he 

did not violate the order, would effectively modify — without court 

approval — that part of the CPO that restrains Hartsuff from having 

any contact whatsoever with J.C., no exceptions. 

¶ 46 In our view, there are strong indications that a CPO is properly 

characterized as an order and function of the court and not an 

order issued by the victim — the importance to the administration 
25 

of justice of enforcing orders of the court, the very limited and 

specific mechanisms for modifying or dismissing a permanent CPO, 

the explicit warnings to Hartsuff and J.C. that they could not agree 

to change the order without court approval, and the General 

Assembly's placement of the statutes governing CPOs in the court 

procedures title. 

¶ 47 This reasoning is supported by several out-of-state cases. For 

example, in State v. Kidder, 843 A.2d 312 (N.H. 2004), the New 

Hampshire Supreme Court stated: 

[W]e emphasize that protective orders are 

orders of the court, not orders of the victim, 

and neither the defendant, the victim, nor a 

representative of either party has the authority 

to approve exceptions to the order. 

If the defendant has a legitimate reason to 

contact the victim, he is not without remedy. 

He can petition the court for an exception to or 

modification of the restraining order. 

Id. at 317 (citations omitted); see also In re Shirley, 28 A.3d 506, 

511 (D.C. 2011) (protective order is an order of the court, not the 

victim); People v. Townsend, 538 N.E.2d 1297, 1299 (Ill. App. Ct. 

1989) (same). 
26 

¶ 48 A protected person simply cannot “consent,” under section 18-

1-505, to another person’s violation of a court order. Under the 

plain language of the consent statute, assent by the victim does not 

constitute consent if the assent is “given by a person whose consent 

is sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense.” § 18-1-

505(3)(c). Here, the CPO statutes, particularly the provisions 

regarding modification and dismissal, preclude the protected person 

from modifying or dismissing the CPO without court involvement, 

and the CPO itself explicitly says that the parties cannot agree to 

change the order. See In re Shirley, 28 A.3d at 511 (considering 

similar CPO language to conclude that purported consent of the 

protected person for contact with the restrained person could not 

modify the CPO to excuse the alleged contact). 

¶ 49 Further, the Model Penal Code notes that subsection (3)(c) of 

its consent section is intended to prevent “improvident consent” 

that is “the very objective sought to be prevented by the law defining 

the offense.” MPC § 2.11 note 3 on Ineffective Consent; see also 

State v. Cardus, 949 P.2d 1047, 1056 (Haw. Ct. App. 1997) 

(concluding that an inmate cannot consent to sexual penetration by 

a prison guard, in part, because the statute criminalizing sexual 
27 

penetration between inmates and guards sought to prevent such 

consent by the inmate). Here, the alleged assent to contact by a 

protected person who allegedly experienced domestic abuse at the 

hands of the restrained person is a prime example of “improvident 

consent” that the CPO statutes seek to prevent. See also § 13-14-

100.2(1), (2) (reflecting the General Assembly’s goal to reduce 

domestic abuse by effective provisions in protective orders). 

B. The County Court Misinterpreted the Consent Statute 

Phrase “Harm or Evil Sought to be Prevented” in the Context of 

the Violation of a Protection Order Statute 

¶ 50 The county court concluded that J.C.’s alleged assent 

constituted consent under section 18-1-505 because it precluded 

the infliction of the harm or evil sought to be prevented by the 

violation of a protection order statute — “contact or proximity” with 

the restrained person. As we have previously concluded, the county 

court apparently did not recognize the inherent ambiguity of the 

relevant language in section 18-1-505(1), in the context of a 

criminal violation of a protection order. Accordingly, our analysis 

below seeks to resolve that ambiguity and leads us to conclude 

that, in this context, the affirmative defense of consent is not 
28 

applicable to a charge of violation of a protection order under 

section 18-6-803.5(1)(a). 

¶ 51 In our analysis, we are particularly concerned with the 

“isolation of the societal objectives of the offense” so that we may 

determine whether J.C.’s alleged assent to contact can constitute 

consent as contemplated by section 18-1-505. MPC § 2.11 note 1 

on General Principles. Because, in our view, the county court too 

narrowly defined the “harm or evil sought to be prevented” by the 

violation of a protection order, we conclude the court abused its 

discretion in allowing the consent defense. Specifically, the county 

court should have considered the violation of a protection order 

statute in the context of the harm that the General Assembly 

intended to prevent in the statutes defining and governing CPOs. 

¶ 52 The violation of a protection order statute criminalizes any

contact a restrained party has with the protected person identified 

in a protection order. § 18-6-803.5(1)(a). The statute does not 

mention consent of the protected person or preventing harm to the 

protected person; neither consent nor harm to the protected person 

is an element of the crime. Therefore, as the county court noted at 

the preliminary hearing, consent cannot be a defense to violation of 
29 

a protection order by way of negating an element of the crime 

charged. See Dixon v. State, 869 N.E.2d 516, 520 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2007) (considering MPC section 2.11 and concluding that the 

protected person’s alleged assent to contact does not negate an 

element of invasion of privacy when that crime does not have an 

element of consent; defendant was charged with invasion of privacy 

by “knowingly or intentionally violating a protective order”). 

¶ 53 The statute provides several definitions of the term “protection 

order,” including any order issued pursuant to title 13, article 14 of 

the C.R.S., as is the case here. We, therefore, must consider title 

13, article 14 and its “societal objectives” in our analysis. 

Huddleston, 31 P.3d at 159; MPC § 2.11 note 1 on General 

Principles. 

¶ 54 Article 14 begins with a lengthy and specific legislative 

declaration. § 13-14-100.2. The first part of the declaration is 

general to all protection orders, criminal and civil, and states that 

issuing and enforcing protection orders are of “paramount 

importance” in Colorado because they “promote safety, reduce 

violence and other types of abuse, and prevent serious harm and 

death.” § 13-14-100.2(1). Notably, these goals are not limited to 
30 

the protected person, but address general harms sought to be 

prevented. These are harms to society. Indeed, “reduc[ing] violence 

and other types of abuse” is a “societal objective,” not a goal specific 

to a single person. Id.; MPC § 2.11 note 1 on General Principles. 

¶ 55 The declaration also addresses domestic abuse specifically 

and, of relevance here, reflects the General Assembly’s 

acknowledgment that domestic abuse can create a situation where 

the abused person is more likely to return to an abuser and that 

protection orders may still be appropriate even when reconciliation 

occurs. § 13-14-100.2(2). 

¶ 56 Given these legislative declarations regarding the importance 

and purpose of enforcing CPOs, we conclude that the harm or evil 

sought to be prevented by a CPO, including enforcing it through 

criminal charges for a violation of such an order, is not mere 

contact with the protected person as the county court concluded, 

but preventing the societal harms of violence, domestic abuse, and 

serious harm or death. Our conclusion is supported not only by 

the legislative declaration in article 14, but also by the commentary 

to the MPC that consent “is not a defense in . . . situations where 

the law has objectives that go beyond the interests that may be 
31 

asserted by an identifiable victim.” Model Penal Code § 2.11 note 1 

on General Principles. Here, the objectives of a CPO go beyond the 

interests of protecting the named protected person and, as 

indicated in the legislative declaration, include preventing domestic 

abuse and eliminating circumstances that make it more likely that 

an abused victim will return to his or her abuser. § 13-14-100.2(1), 

(2). 

¶ 57 Furthermore, a protected person’s alleged assent to contact 

with the restrained person does not prevent the infliction of 

violence, abuse, or death upon the protected person, nor does it 

prevent violation of a court order. Other states have also concluded 

that alleged assent to contact by a protected person does not 

preclude the harm sought to be prevented by the issuance and 

enforcement of protection orders. See In re Shirley, 28 A.3d at 511 

(noting that the legislative body recognized that the public has an 

interest in preventing the intrafamily violence that CPOs are 

intended to prevent and consent of a protected person to contact 

does not prevent intrafamily violence); Dixon, 869 N.E.2d at 520 

(The court considered the MPC consent section and concluded the 

protected person’s assent does not “preclude the infliction of 
32 

violence the statute seeks to prevent. Specifically, [the protected 

person’s] alleged consent does not prevent violence nor does it 

preclude the violation of a court order.”). 

¶ 58 Indeed, as noted, the legislative declarations concerning CPOs 

in the context of domestic abuse indicate the General Assembly’s 

intent that CPOs may continue to be necessary even when the 

parties choose to reconcile. § 13-14-100.2(2). Nothing in the 

language of the CPO statute or the violation of a protection order 

statute, both of which seek to prevent domestic violence, indicates 

the General Assembly’s intent to provide an affirmative defense to a 

restrained person who violates a CPO because the protected person 

later allegedly assents to contact. See State v. Branson, 167 P.3d 

370, 373 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007) (analyzing the domestic violence 

context of the crime of violation of a protective order to determine 

the legislature’s intent that the crime is one against society, and to 

conclude that the defense of consent is not available); see also State 

v. Dejarlais, 969 P.2d 90, 92-93 (Wash. 1998) (holding that the 

purpose of the domestic violence statutes ruled out a consent 

defense to a charge of violating a domestic violence protection 

order). 
33 

¶ 59 It is telling that we have found no cases that conclude consent 

of the protected person is an available affirmative defense to the 

offense of violation of a protection order. The out-of-state cases the 

Attorney General cites in support of its arguments on appeal are 

inapposite. In Mohamed v. Mohamed, 557 A.2d 696, 697-98 (N.J. 

Super. Ct. App. Div. 1989), the civil court considered the validity of 

a custody provision in a protective order after the parties had 

reconciled; the court gave absolutely no consideration to the 

affirmative defense of consent because the case was not criminal in 

nature. Also, here, unlike in Mohamed, there are no children 

involved, there is no custody provision in the CPO, and the parties 

were never married or going through a reconciliation. Further, 

unlike the defendant in Mohamed, Hartsuff does not question the 

validity of the CPO. Id. at 698. The case is simply inapplicable. 

¶ 60 In a second New Jersey case cited by the Attorney General, the 

court considered whether an alleged reconciliation prevented a 

temporary protective order from becoming permanent. Torres v. 

Lancellotti, 607 A.2d 1375, 1376 (N.J. Super. Ct. Ch. Div. 1992). 

This case, again, did not consider the affirmative defense of consent 
34 

— the context there was a civil proceeding rather than a criminal 

trial.10 Id. 

¶ 61 Nor does our conclusion mean that a protected person’s 

alleged assent to contact is wholly irrelevant, In re Shirley, 28 A.3d 

at 512-13, or that a protected person can, with impunity, approach 

the restrained person, initiate contact, and then later allege to the 

police that the restrained person violated the protection order. We 

recognize that evidence of assent can, potentially, be relevant to 

show that the restrained person did not have the necessary mens 

rea for violation of a protection order, or that “contact,” as that term 

is broadly defined, did not occur. However, contrary to the Attorney 

General’s argument, this is not the same as asserting consent as an 

affirmative defense. When consent is an affirmative defense, the 

prosecution is required to disprove that defense beyond a 

reasonable doubt in addition to proving the elements of the crime of 

violation of a protection order. People v. Nelson, 2014 COA 165, 

 

10 Interestingly, the Torres court held that revisions to the state’s 

Domestic Violence Prevention Act required that “no [protection] 

order should be vacated upon a reconciliation or mutual violation 

without an analysis of the necessity for continued protection and 

restraints.” Torres v. Lancellotti, 607 A.2d 1375, 1377 (N.J. Super. 

Ct. Ch. Div. 1992). If anything, this case supports our analysis and 

conclusion here. 
35 

¶ 49. When a defendant argues that assent by the protected person 

shows that the prosecution did not prove all the elements of a 

crime, it is a traverse defense and the prosecution does not need to 

prove an additional element and the defendant is not entitled to a 

consent defense instruction. See id. at ¶¶ 49, 52. 

¶ 62 Further, we are not persuaded by the Attorney General’s 

concerns that protected persons may unfairly invite contact with a 

restrained person and then use that contact to claim that the 

restrained person violated the protection order. A defendant 

charged with violation of a protection order must knowingly contact 

a protected person in a way that violates the terms of a protection 

order. People v. Coleby, 34 P.3d 422, 424 (Colo. 2001) (stating that 

the mens rea of knowingly applies to the conduct prong of the 

violation of a protection order statute). In Colorado, the mens rea of 

“knowingly” is synonymous with “willfully,” the mens rea applicable 

to the crimes charged in Shirley and Dixon. With respect to 

conduct, a defendant acts knowingly or willfully when he or she is 

aware that his or her conduct is of the nature prohibited by the 

statute or is aware that the conduct is practically certain to cause 

the result. § 18-1-501(6), C.R.S. 2016. To constitute a violation of 
36 

a “no contact” provision of a protection order, “the defendant’s 

conduct must involve physical touching or some element of direct or 

indirect communication, or attempted communication, with the 

victim. Consequently, incidental contact that occurs unintentionally 

and is unavoidable is not sufficient, by itself, to establish a 

violation.” People v. Serra, 2015 COA 130, ¶ 34 (emphasis added). 

Thus, where the only contact alleged is when the protected person 

later decides to report contact that he or she initiated, evidence of 

such contact could arguably be “incidental contact that occurs 

unintentionally” or show that the defendant did not have the 

requisite mens rea because he or she was not aware that his or her 

conduct was of the type prohibited by statute. Id.; see § 18-1-

501(6). In other words, “if the evidence showed that the [protected 

person] approached the [restrained person] without [the restrained 

person’s] encouragement or consent . . . , the court might be unable 

to find that the respondent willfully violated the CPO (and, indeed, 

the government might hesitate to prosecute . . . ).” Shirley, 28 A.3d 

at 512 (footnote omitted). 
37 

V. Conclusion 

¶ 63 The district court’s order is reversed, and the case is 

remanded with directions to remand to the county court for further 

proceedings and with instructions to preclude Hartsuff from 

asserting consent as an affirmative defense to the charge of 

violation of a protection order. 

JUDGE PLANK and JUDGE MÁRQUEZ concur.