Court Opinion

ID: 9599712
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:20:53.54987+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:46.413778
License: Public Domain

LOHR, Justice,
dissenting in part:
I disagree with the conclusion reached in part Y of the majority opinion that there is insufficient evidence to support the defendant’s conviction for attempting to influence a public servant. See § 18-8-306, 8 C.R.S. (1978). Therefore, I respectfully dissent from that part of the opinion, while joining in all other sections of the opinion.
As stated by the majority, the elements of the crime of attempting to influence a public servant are: “(1) an attempt to influ*1274ence a public servant (2) by means of deceit or by threat of violence or economic reprisal (3) with the intent to alter or affect the public servant’s decision or action.” 703 P.2d at 1269. The only testimony at trial on this issue came from Diana Tibaldo, the employee of the Jefferson County Assessor’s Office whom the defendant allegedly attempted to influence. Tibaldo testified that when she told the defendant that she had been advised by her superiors that she could not transfer the property to Norman on the assessor’s records based on the deeds Norman had recorded, he stated: “ T work for the I.R.S., and if you don’t get it straightened out I could cause you lot [sic] of problems.’ ”
The majority concedes that this statement could be construed as a threat of economic reprisal, but finds that there is no indication of an intent “to alter or affect Tibaldo’s decision.” The trial court, in contrast, found “that the element, then, that he did threaten her or attempt to cause her to alter her opinion or to take action, has been satisfied.” A trial court’s finding of fact, supported by adequate evidence in the record, should not be disturbed on review, even though this court, had it been the trier of fact, might have found differently. People v. Johnson, 653 P.2d 737, 740 (Colo. 1982). The fact that the trial court failed to use the word “intend” does not change the substance of its finding. It would be illogical to interpret the trial court’s statement to mean that the defendant used threats in an attempt to make Tibaldo take action to transfer the property on the assessor’s records, but had no intention to alter or affect her decision not to do so.
Because I believe that the trial court’s ruling was adequately supported by the evidence, and that the defendant’s constitutional challenges to the statute are without merit, I would uphold the defendant’s conviction for attempting to influence a public servant.
I am authorized to say that Justice DU-BOFSKY joins in this partial dissent.