Colorado’s second-highest court reversed a defendant’s conviction last week for assaulting a paramedic, concluding that a Denver judge needed to give jurors additional information about the duties that paramedics are legally authorized to carry out.

Two paramedics were attempting to take Chakib E. Ez-Zahir to a hospital against his will. After one paramedic blocked his path, Ez-Zahir struck her forearm with his fist. Prosecutors charged him with assault and jurors convicted him.

As a component of the crime, Ez-Zahir needed to have caused injury to the paramedic with the intent to stop her from performing a “lawful duty.” Moreover, Ez-Zahir’s claim that he acted in self-defense hinged on the imminent use of “unlawful physical force” by the paramedic. Taken together, the jury had to determine whether the paramedic acted lawfully in attempting to transport Ez-Zahir without his consent.

By a 2-1 vote, a three-judge Court of Appeals panel concluded that the lack of any instruction on paramedics’ lawful duties likely influenced the verdict.

“Because Ez-Zahir claimed, with record support, that the paramedics were about to use unlawful force against him for the purpose of administering medical treatment without his consent, some accurate instruction on the scope of the paramedics’ lawful authority to use force was necessary to assist the jury in making that determination,” wrote Judge Elizabeth L. Harris in the April 16 opinion.

Judge Terry Fox dissented, arguing paramedics’ lawful duties should be “broadly interpreted” and would encompass taking someone into protective custody for treatment.

“Whether emergency personnel act consistent with — or exceed — the scope of their duties varies; for that very reason, they are trained on different responses to shifting on-the-ground situations,” she wrote. “They need leeway to assess and address those emergencies quickly and without fear of implementing the necessary response.”

Ez-Zahir arrived at an office appointment, where an employee grew concerned about visible injuries on his hands and signs of intoxication. Ez-Zahir allegedly admitted to falling, but said he was otherwise all right. Another employee allegedly had seen Ez-Zahir fall in a road earlier that day.

In response to a call for assistance, two paramedics arrived to assess Ez-Zahir’s injuries. He refused treatment. After determining Ez-Zahir’s intoxication had compromised his decision-making capacity, the paramedics moved to take him to the hospital over his objection. One of the paramedics tried to prevent him from leaving, and Ez-Zahir struck her forearm.

In addition to a jury instruction about self-defense, Ez-Zahir’s attorney also proposed an instruction to inform jurors about paramedics’ legal authority to provide treatment involuntarily. District Court Judge Eric M. Johnson declined to give the instruction, believing it applied to situations where a medical provider is the defendant, not the victim.

On appeal, the defense maintained that it was crucial for jurors to assess whether the paramedics acted lawfully in trying to transport Ez-Zahir against his will. The government countered that jurors heard about the protocols that the paramedics had to follow.

“These protocols speak to the lawfulness of the paramedics’ actions, and further instructions on ‘lawful duty’ were not required,” wrote Jenna Baker of the Colorado Attorney General’s Office.

But the appellate panel’s majority disagreed that professional protocols were the same thing as legal authority.

“For one thing, although the protocols direct the paramedics to transport nonconsenting patients to the hospital under certain circumstances, they do not address the paramedics’ allowable use of force to do so,” wrote Harris for herself and Judge Timothy J. Schutz.

She noted that there was evidence suggesting Ez-Zahir believed the paramedics would use force against him. While state law allows medical providers to use reasonable force “for the purpose of administering a recognized form of treatment” in an emergency, jurors had no guidance to decide whether Ez-Zahir’s case fell into that category.

With a proper instruction, “a reasonable jury could have found that Ez-Zahir’s physical condition — even considering his intoxication, recent fall, and scraped knuckles — did not rise to the level of ‘an emergency’ allowing the paramedics to forcibly transport him for the purpose of administering medical treatment without his consent,” wrote Harris. “And if the jury made that finding, then Ez-Zahir was justified in using reasonable force against them so long as he had a reasonable belief that the paramedics were about to forcibly transport him.”

Fox, in dissent, believed the portion of state law referring to use-of-force applied to treatment at a hospital, and not the act of transporting someone to a hospital. She concluded the jury had all of the instructions it needed, and did not think jurors would reach a different verdict had they received the defense’s requested instruction.

The case is People v. Ez-Zahir.