2025 COA 69
Colo. Ct. App.2025Background
- Jeremiah D. Casper was convicted of stalking (credible threat) and harassment after sending a series of threatening emails to police officer B.O. in April 2020.
- Casper’s earlier 2018 communications to B.O. led to dismissed harassment charges; the 2020 emails contained escalated references to guns, violence, and bodily harm.
- Prior to trial, Casper challenged the stalking statute as unconstitutional as applied, arguing his emails were protected speech under the First Amendment.
- The trial court denied the challenge, finding the emails were “true threats” under People in Interest of R.D., a precedent later abrogated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Counterman v. Colorado.
- After trial and sentencing, Counterman clarified that stalking convictions for “true threats” require at least a mens rea of recklessness but found the "knowingly" mental state sufficient.
- On appeal, Casper argued constitutional violations, sufficiency of the evidence, and that harassment should merge with stalking for double jeopardy purposes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether First Amendment protects Casper’s emails from stalking conviction | Emails constituted true threats; conviction valid | Emails not true threats, protected by First Amendment | Jury instructions applied proper mental state, conviction affirmed |
| Whether the evidence was sufficient for stalking and harassment | Sufficient evidence of knowing threats and intent | Evidence did not show knowledge or intent to threaten | Evidence sufficient for both convictions |
| Whether harassment conviction should merge with stalking | Separate offenses, different elements | Harassment is a lesser included offense, must merge | No merger required; elements differ |
| Whether harassment conviction violates First Amendment | Defense conceded guilt at trial, waiving issue | Harassment statute overbroad, violates free speech | Argument waived due to trial concessions |
Key Cases Cited
- Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U.S. 66 (2023) (clarified First Amendment requires subjective recklessness or higher mens rea for true threat prosecutions)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (harmless error review standard)
- Clark v. People, 232 P.3d 1287 (Colo. 2010) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)