v. Deutsch, 2020 COA 114

Deutsch and ex-wife Alicia O’Sullivan share custody; they communicate via Talking Parents (an e-messaging log).
On Sept. 8, 2017, Deutsch picked up the child during O’Sullivan’s parenting time, refused to return her, and told O’Sullivan he would not return the child unless she paid $1,988, gave him extra parenting time, and allowed a vacation.
O’Sullivan called police; Deutsch returned the child to a park after speaking with her on speakerphone and making the demands.
Deutsch was charged with criminal extortion (count specifically alleging a threat to cause economic hardship) and violation of a custody order; a jury convicted him on both counts.
On the morning of trial counsel moved to withdraw citing threats and physical intimidation by Deutsch; a conflict court denied withdrawal but failed to advise Deutsch of the right to conflict-free counsel.
At trial the jury was instructed using the statute’s full list of possible substantial threats (including confinement), and the prosecutor emphasized the taking/confining of the child as the threat—contrary to the information’s economic-hardship allegation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendant was denied conflict-free counsel	No actual conflict; any advisement deficiency is moot	Attorney threatened/physically grabbed; court should have permitted withdrawal or advised waiver	No actual conflict shown; failure to advise did not require reversal
Whether jury instruction constructively amended the extortion charge	Instruction tracked statute; valid	Charged only with threatening economic harm; instruction expanded elements	Instruction constructively amended the information by adding alternative threats; plain error
Whether evidence supports extortion as charged (economic hardship)	Evidence of demands (including money) supports extortion conviction	Prosecution charged economic-harm theory but proved confinement/retention of child, not economic harm	Evidence insufficient to prove the economic-hardship theory; extortion conviction vacated and dismissed
Whether admission of custody transcript and Talking Parents communications was improper under CRE 404(b)	Evidence was admissible to show custody terms and intent to deprive custody	Poem and hostile communications were prejudicial prior-act evidence	Talking Parents admissible; poem reference admission erroneous but not prejudicial; custody-violation conviction affirmed

People v. Rodriguez, 914 P.2d 230 (Colo. 1996) (defines constructive amendment analysis)
People v. Edebohls, 944 P.2d 552 (Colo. App. 1996) (conflict of interest where counsel had personal criminal exposure)
People v. Hagos, 250 P.3d 596 (Colo. App. 2009) (trial court duty to inquire into potential conflicts; must show actual conflict to reverse)
Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162 (2002) (failure to inquire into a potential conflict is not automatic reversal)
People v. Campbell, 174 P.3d 860 (Colo. App. 2007) (elements required for criminal extortion)
People v. Miller, 113 P.3d 743 (Colo. 2005) (plain-error standard requires showing error that undermines trial fairness)
People v. Spoto, 795 P.2d 1314 (Colo. 1990) (four-prong CRE 404(b) admissibility test)