Source: https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2015/03/colorado-court-of-appeals-self-employed-director-of-private-school-not-public-employee/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 01:01:41+00:00

Document:
Colorado Court of Appeals: Self-Employed Director of Private School Not "Public Employee"
The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People v. Rediger on Thursday, March 12, 2015.
Public Employee—Public Building—CRS § 18-9-110(1)—Jury Instructions—Waiver.
Believing that Rediger had stolen hay from their property, the victim and her husband asked the district attorney to bring charges against him. While school was in session, Rediger drove to the Rocky Mountain Youth Academy (Academy), where the victim worked as owner–director, to discuss the charges. Redigerwas convicted by a jury of interfering with a public employee in a public building, in violation of CRS § 18-9-110(1), and interfering with staff, faculty, or students of an educational institution, in violation of CRS § 18-9-109(2).
On appeal, Rediger argued that because the victim was not a “public employee” and the Academy was not a “public building,” his conviction cannot stand under CRS § 18-9-110(1). The record does not show that any governmental entity had the right to hire or fire Academy employees. In addition, because the victim testified that she drew her salary from the budget that she controlled, the state did not have any direct control over her salary. Moreover, the record does not contain sufficient evidence for any reasonable juror to conclude that the Academy was a public building. Because these errors were obvious, the trial court erred by not sua sponte dismissing the charge.
Rediger also argued that the prosecution made an improper constructive amendment of the second charge by tendering an elemental instruction under CRS § 18-9-109(1)(b) rather than under CRS §18-9-109(2), as charged in the information. Because Rediger’s trial counsel affirmatively agreed to the jury instructions, he waived any right to appeal the instructions. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction on the § 18-9-110(1) count was reversed, and the judgment of conviction on the § 18-9-109(2) count was affirmed.

References: v. 
 § 18
 § 18
 § 18
 § 18
 § 18
 §18
 § 18
 § 18