Cheryl Lynette Plemmons v. the People of the State of Colorado

Summary

The court held that “harm” in the charged second-degree-assault provisions can include physical, psychological, or emotional damage, but it must involve intended prolonged damage arising from the risk of infection from unwanted bodily-fluid contact. The trial court's instruction was too broad because it allowed the jury to find harm based on any significant distress, so the two convictions under subsection (h) were vacated and remanded for a new trial; the subsection (f.5) conviction was affirmed because the instructional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the other intended effects charged under that provision. Justice Gabriel, joined by Justice Márquez, concurred only in the judgment and would have construed “harm” to mean physical harm.