Peo v. French

── Peo v. French ── Court: Colorado Court of Appeals Date: May 28, 2026 Category: General 24CA1474 Peo v French 05-28-2026 COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No. 24CA1474 City and County of Denver District Court No. 22CR5246 Honorable Eric M. Johnson, Judge The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jazmine N. French, Defendant-Appellant. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED Division II Opinion by JUDGE SULLIVAN Fox and Kuhn, JJ., concur NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) Announced May 28, 2026 Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, Josiah Beamish, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee Robert P. Borquez, Alternate Defense Counsel, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellant ¶1 Defendant, Jazmine N. French, appeals the judgment of conviction entered on a jury verdict finding her guilty of second degree assault. We affirm. I. Background ¶2 A jury could have reasonably found the following facts. ¶3 In September 2022, French rear-ended the victim, Cecelia Soria, while traffic was at a standstill. After feeling her car get bumped, Soria started recording a video on her cell phone. Soria walked from her car to the back of French’s car, recording French’s face, car, and license plate. After seeing this, French got out of her car and knocked Soria’s phone out of her hand. Soria then pushed French, prompting French to punch her in the face. As French described at trial, the two then engaged in a “big old brawl.” A short time later, French’s passenger, her daughter, also began fighting with Soria. ¶4 The prosecution charged French with second degree assault and first degree contributing to the delinquency of a minor. A jury found French guilty of second degree assault but acquitted her of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The district court sentenced French to three years of probation with the condition 1  that she enroll in anger management and conflict resolution classes. ¶5 French now appeals. II. Heat of Passion Jury Instruction ¶6 French contends that the district court erred by not instructing the jury on heat of passion, a mitigating factor for second degree assault. She asserts that Soria’s push and her video-recording the encounter constituted highly provoking acts that supported French’s requested instruction. We disagree. A. Applicable Law and Standard of Review ¶7 Second degree assault is a class 4 felony. § 18-3-203(2)(b), C.R.S. 2025. But if the defendant commits the assault in a sudden heat of passion, the charge is reduced to a class 6 felony. § 18-3-203(2)(a). ¶8 To receive a heat of passion instruction, the defendant must provide evidence that (1) the assault was performed upon a sudden heat of passion; (2) the assault was caused by a serious and highly provoking act of the intended victim; (3) the provoking act was sufficient to excite an irresistible passion in a reasonable person; and (4) between the provocation and the assault, an insufficient 2  amount of time passed for the voice of reason and humanity to be heard. Id.; see People v. Tardif, 2017 COA 136, ¶ 22 (citing Cassels v. People, 92 P.3d 951, 956 (Colo. 2004)). The evidence must “establish that an objectively reasonable person would have similarly suffered an irresistible passion.” People v. Dooley, 944 P.2d 590, 594 (Colo. App. 1997). ¶9 The defendant must present “some credible evidence” in support of each element to receive the instruction. People v. Oslund, 2012 COA 62, ¶¶ 15-16 (quoting O’Shaughnessy v. People, 2012 CO 9, ¶ 11). We review de novo whether sufficient evidence supported a requested jury instruction. O’Shaughnessy, ¶ 13. B.