Colorado’s second-highest court reversed a defendant’s convictions for forgery and attempting to influence a public servant last month because a Boulder County judge improperly blocked him from calling witnesses who could testify about his truthfulness.

A three-judge Court of Appeals panel also clarified for the first time that a person can be convicted for attempting to influence a public servant even if the government employee ultimately lacks the authority to act on the matter at hand.

Lawmakers “enacted this provision to criminalize deceitful acts that could potentially influence a public servant,” wrote Judge Ted C. Tow III in the panel’s June 25 opinion. “And it logically follows that the General Assembly would not treat differently a defendant who intended to influence a public servant, and took deceitful action to do so, but happened to mistakenly believe the particular public servant actually had control over the requisite decision.”

In early 2020, Charles M. Schmidt received a two-year probationary sentence, which included the requirement that he perform public service. While Schmidt’s appeal in that criminal case was pending, probation officials alleged Schmidt violated the terms and moved to revoke his probation. In 2023, then-Chief Judge Ingrid Bakke resentenced Schmidt to jail and an additional two years of probation.

At that same hearing, Schmidt presented Bakke with a purported letter from the Salvation Army attesting to his community service. Bakke spotted irregularities in the document and asked the district attorney’s office to investigate. Prosecutors concluded the letter was inauthentic and charged Schmidt with forgery and attempting to influence a public servant.

On the final day of his trial, the Court of Appeals overturned Bakke’s decision to reimpose probation. The appellate judges determined that Schmidt’s original sentence had expired at the time, and Bakke had no authority to impose another sentence.

The defense moved for a mistrial. Attempting to influence a public servant requires someone to use deceit while intending to affect a public servant’s action “concerning any matter which is to be considered or performed by the public servant.” Because Bakke ultimately had no resentencing authority, “there was nothing to be considered by the court,” the defense argued.

Stephen E. Howard, a retired judge presiding over the trial, denied the motion.

Separately, Howard rejected the defense’s attempt to call witnesses who could speak to Schmidt’s character and his truthfulness.

On appeal, Schmidt argued that no prior case in Colorado had established that a defendant can stand convicted of attempting to influence a public servant “where the relevant public official had no power to take any action.”

“Schmidt’s argument would lead to an absurd result,” countered Assistant Attorney General Rachel Lieb. “Schmidt essentially argues that presenting forged documents to a court is legal, so long as it is later determined that the trial court lacked jurisdiction. However, the legal authority is clear that it is the defendant’s intent in presenting the false utterance, not the ultimate impact of that utterance, that is central.”

The Court of Appeals panel agreed with her.

“And regardless of the subsequent determination that the district court judge lacked jurisdiction over the resentencing hearing,” wrote Tow, “Schmidt nevertheless presented the forged public service letter with the intent to affect the decision the judge was actively considering at that time.”

However, the panel agreed that Howard’s decision to exclude the defense’s character witnesses was erroneous. Because both charges required the prosecution to prove that Schmidt acted deceitfully, explained Tow, Schmidt’s character for truthfulness was relevant.

“In other words, the erroneous exclusion of Schmidt’s character witnesses effectively deprived him of the only means of effectively challenging the prosecution’s evidence regarding a significant issue in the case — his character for truthfulness,” wrote Tow.

The panel ordered a new trial.

The case is People v. Schmidt.