Peo in Interest of Todd

── Peo in Interest of Todd ── Court: Colorado Court of Appeals Date: May 07, 2026 Category: General 26CA0336 Peo in Interest of Todd 05-07-2026 COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No. 26CA0336 Pueblo County District Court No. 26MH30015 Honorable Amiel Markenson, Judge The People of the State of Colorado, Petitioner-Appellee, In the Interest of Lucas Dean Todd, Respondent-Appellant. ORDER AFFIRMED Division VII Opinion by JUDGE GOMEZ Pawar and Johnson, JJ., concur NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) Announced May 7, 2026 Cynthia Mitchell, County Attorney, Kate H. Shafer, Special Assistant County Attorney, Pueblo, Colorado, for Petitioner-Appellee Tezak Law, P.C., Mary Tezak, Florence, Colorado, for Respondent-Appellant ¶1 Respondent, Lucas Dean Todd, appeals the district court’s order authorizing the staff at the Colorado Mental Health Hospital in Pueblo (the hospital) to involuntarily medicate him. We affirm. I. Background ¶2 In March 2025, Todd was committed to the department of human services after being found incompetent to proceed in a criminal case. The following January, he was admitted to the hospital and diagnosed with psychosis not otherwise specified. He presented as guarded, irritable, paranoid, and delusional. In February, he was placed on emergency medications after a physical altercation with a peer. ¶3 Shortly thereafter, the People petitioned the district court to review Todd’s refusal of treatment. The court held an evidentiary hearing, at which the psychiatrist supervising Todd’s care testified. The psychiatrist described Todd’s mental health disorder and accompanying symptoms. He also described the requested medications — Zyprexa (olanzapine), Depakote (valproic acid), and Haldol (haloperidol) — and explained their possible side effects. And he opined that the medications were necessary to treat Todd’s symptoms. 1 ¶4 At the conclusion of the hearing, the district court granted the petition and issued an order authorizing the involuntary administration of the requested medications. II. Applicable Law and Standard of Review ¶5 A district court may order the involuntary administration of medication if the People prove by clear and convincing evidence that (1) the patient is incompetent to effectively participate in the treatment decision; (2) the treatment is necessary to prevent a significant and likely long-term deterioration in the patient’s mental health condition or to prevent the likelihood of the patient causing serious harm to themselves or others at the institution; (3) a less intrusive treatment alternative is not available; and (4) the patient’s need for treatment is sufficiently compelling to override any bona fide and legitimate interest of the patient in refusing treatment. People v. Medina, 705 P.2d 961, 973 (Colo. 1985). ¶6 When a patient challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting an involuntary medication order, we review the district court’s legal conclusions de novo and defer to its factual findings if they have record support. People v. Marquardt, 2016 CO 4, ¶ 8. We view the evidence as a whole and in the light most favorable to the 2  People as the petitioning party. People in Interest of Uwayezuk, 2023 COA 69, ¶ 57. As the fact finder, the district court determines the sufficiency, probative effect, and weight of the evidence, along with the inferences and conclusions to be drawn from it. People in Interest of R.C., 2019 COA 99M, ¶ 7. III. Need for Treatment and Legitimate Interest in Refusing Treatment ¶7 Todd contends that the evidence was insufficient to prove the fourth Medina element — that his need for the requested medications is sufficie