People v. Rediger
416 P.3d 893
Colo.2018Background
- David Rediger went to Rocky Mountain Youth Academy (a private nonprofit school) to confront its owner-director, Stacey Holland, about alleged theft; Holland said he followed her into a classroom, acted aggressively, and threatened her, while Rediger denied entering the building.
- Rediger was charged with intimidating a witness, interference with a public employee in a public building (§ 18-9-110(1)), and interference with staff/faculty/students of an educational institution (§ 18-9-109(2)).
- The prosecutor’s proposed elemental jury instruction mistakenly tracked § 18-9-109(1)(b) (denial of use of property) rather than the charged § 18-9-109(2) (impeding by restraint, abduction, coercion, intimidation, or force).
- Defense counsel reviewed the proposed instructions pretrial and, at charge conference, stated he was “satisfied” with the instructions but never specifically objected to the subsection mismatch.
- The jury acquitted on intimidation but convicted Rediger of interference with a public employee and interference with staff/faculty/students; the court of appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part.
- The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed reversal of the public-employee conviction and reversed the § 18-9-109(2) conviction, remanding that count for a new trial because the instruction effected a constructive amendment and the error was plain (forfeiture, not waiver/invited error).
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Rediger’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether owner-director of nonprofit school is a “public employee” under § 18-9-110(1) | Term covers employees who perform public services and could include employees of regulated private entities | "Public employee" means an employee of a governmental entity; Holland was employed by a private nonprofit she owned | "Public employee" means an employee of a governmental entity; Holland was not a public employee — conviction reversed |
| Whether defense counsel’s statement of being “satisfied” with jury instructions waived or invited appellate review of a constructive amendment claim | The blanket statement amounted to affirmative acquiescence and waived the claim; invited error alternatively applies | The statement does not show intentional relinquishment or that defense injected the error; at most a forfeiture requiring plain-error review | The statement did not constitute waiver or invited error; it was forfeiture only — plain-error review applies |
| Whether the instruction tracking § 18-9-109(1)(b) when the information charged § 18-9-109(2) constructively amended the information | The mismatch was not a constructive amendment or was harmless | The instruction changed an essential element (removing requirement of restraint/abduction/coercion/intimidation/force) and deprived notice — constructive amendment occurred | The discrepancy constructively amended the information; error was plain and undermined reliability — conviction reversed and remanded for new trial |
| Appropriate remedy for constructive amendment | Remand for new trial | Dismiss if evidence insufficient for § 18-9-109(2) as charged | Remand for a new trial because evidence could support § 18-9-109(2); court expresses no view whether prosecution may amend information on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212 (holding that conviction on a charge not made by the grand jury is fatal error)
- Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (distinguishing waiver from forfeiture and authorizing plain-error review)
- Weinreich v. People, 119 P.3d 1073 (describing plain-error standard)
- Zapata v. People, 779 P.2d 1307 (invited error doctrine applies where party drafted/tendered instruction)
- Norton v. Gilman, 949 P.2d 565 (discussing right-to-control test for employee status)
- Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345 (regulation of private entity does not by itself make its action state action)
- Logue v. United States, 412 U.S. 521 (federal regulation/inspection does not transform county employees into federal employees)
- Cervantes v. People, 715 P.2d 783 (information must charge essential elements of an offense)
- Rodriguez v. People, 914 P.2d 230 (constructive amendment occurs when instruction changes an essential element of the charged offense)