The Colorado Court of Appeals has affirmed the conviction of Steven Chopper Rustemeyer for attempted second-degree assault and obstructing a peace officer. This ruling, announced on October 29, 2026, in case number 24CA1731, comes after Rustemeyer challenged the jury instructions provided during his trial. The court's decision confirms the legal standards applied in such cases and clarifies the requirements for proving intent in assault cases.

Rustemeyer’s case arose from an incident involving a custody dispute where law enforcement arrested a child's mother. Rustemeyer, a friend of the mother, intervened when he saw her being taken into custody. He expressed concern for her safety and, during the altercation, lunged at the officers, resulting in a physical confrontation. This led to his charges of attempted second-degree assault on a peace officer and obstructing a peace officer.

The court's ruling is significant as it addresses the legal standards surrounding jury instructions, particularly regarding the elements of intent required for a conviction of attempted assault. Rustemeyer argued that the trial court misdescribed the intent element when responding to the jury's inquiries, which he believed could have influenced their decision-making process.

Background

The case began when law enforcement responded to a call regarding a custody dispute involving Rustemeyer’s friend. Upon witnessing the arrest of the child's mother, Rustemeyer confronted the officers, stating, "If you’re taking her to jail, you’re taking me [to jail]." He then lunged at the officers, resulting in physical contact that knocked the mother to the ground. As a result, he faced charges for attempted second-degree assault and obstructing a peace officer.

During the trial, the jury received instructions on the elements of attempted second-degree assault, which included the requirement of intent. However, Rustemeyer contended that when the jury asked for clarification on the definition of assault, the court's response omitted crucial aspects of the intent necessary for their deliberation. This led to his appeal after the jury found him guilty.

The Ruling

The Colorado Court of Appeals, in its opinion, affirmed the lower court's judgment, stating that the trial court's response to the jury's question adequately covered the necessary elements of intent. The judges noted, "The mental state required for second degree assault and attempted second degree assault is the same." They emphasized that the jury had to find that Rustemeyer acted with the intent to prevent a peace officer from performing a lawful duty and with the intent to cause bodily injury.

The court also addressed Rustemeyer’s concerns regarding the jury instruction on reasonable doubt. He argued that the 2023 model jury instruction used during his trial did not adequately convey the standard of proof required for his conviction. However, the court ruled that the instruction was consistent with established legal standards and did not lower the prosecution's burden of proof. The judges stated, "The instruction contained the 'firmly convinced' and 'reasonable possibility' language, which sufficiently describes the reasonable doubt standard."

Impact

The court's decision has implications for future cases involving jury instructions, particularly in the context of assault and the necessary elements of intent. By affirming the lower court's ruling, the Colorado Court of Appeals has reinforced the importance of clear and precise jury instructions that adequately inform jurors of the law. This ruling may serve as a precedent for similar cases where defendants challenge the adequacy of jury instructions regarding intent and reasonable doubt.

Furthermore, the ruling clarifies the expectations for trial courts in providing jury instructions, emphasizing that while model instructions are not binding, they serve as important guidelines for ensuring jurors understand the legal standards they must apply. The decision also highlights the courts' commitment to upholding the rights of defendants while ensuring that justice is served in accordance with the law.

What's Next

Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether Rustemeyer plans to appeal the ruling further. However, the affirmation of his conviction by the Colorado Court of Appeals suggests that he has limited options for further legal recourse unless new evidence or legal arguments arise.