People v. Moore, 2013 COA 86

Moore, a private attorney, entered the Denver City and County Building and faced a security checkpoint operated by a private security guard employed by HSS.
The victim was a private security guard employed by Hospital Shared Services, Inc. (HSS) under contract with the city.
Evidence showed Moore complained about security, cut in line, placed items in a bin, grabbed a bin before x-ray, was blocked by the victim, and then pushed the victim and took the bin, injuring her shoulder.
Moore was charged with one count of third-degree assault against an at-risk victim and one count of impeding a public official or employee in a public building.
Moore moved to dismiss the second count arguing the victim was not a “public employee” under 18-9-110(2); the stipulations established the victim worked for a private entity under contract, not the government; the trial court denied the motion.
The jury found not guilty on the assault count and guilty on the impeding count, and Moore was sentenced to twelve months of probation; the trial court’s denial of the motion to dismiss was reviewed on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the victim is a "public employee" under 18-9-110(2).	People argued the statute applies to public entities; the trial court adopted a broad reading.	Moore argued the victim was not a public employee since she worked for a private contractor.	The court held the victim was not a public employee; conviction vacated.
Is the trial court's denial of the motion to dismiss moot after the subsequent conviction trial?	The denial remained reviewable and not moot.	The denial could be considered moot after the verdict on the underlying issue.	The court rejected mootness; the denial remained reviewable on appeal.

Henisse v. First Transit, Inc., 247 P.3d 577 (Colo.2011) (whether a privately employed driver is a public employee for immunity purposes)
TCF Equipment Finance, Inc. v. Public Trustee, 297 P.3d 1048 (Colo.App.2013) (statutory interpretation framework; plain language first, then history and consequences)
People v. Summers, 208 P.3d 251 (Colo.2009) (statutory interpretation guiding principle; plain language control)
People v. J.J.H., 17 P.3d 159 (Colo.2001) (interpretation of statutory terms; reliance on plain meaning)
People v. Valenzuela, 216 P.3d 588 (Colo.2009) (plain language approach in statutory interpretation)
People v. Luther, 58 P.3d 1013 (Colo.2002) (plain language principle for statutory interpretation)
Dubois v. People, 211 P.3d 41 (Colo.2009) (statutory interpretation framework; legislative intent)