Background
After Tennessee authorities received calls reporting a bomb at the state capitol, the caller identified himself as Eddie Lovins and said he would shoot any state officer sent to his Pueblo, Colorado, home. Pueblo County officers went to the home for a welfare check. When Lovins’s neighbor crouched to retrieve a spare key, shots came from inside the house, injuring Sergeant Joshua Rude and Deputy Nicolas Berumen with shrapnel.
Later, Deputy Dylan Jacketta and Wildlife Officer Eric Harper took cover behind Jacketta’s truck near the house. Lovins emerged with a rifle, fired several volleys toward them, struck the truck with at least one round, and then was arrested after officers used bean-bag rounds. He was heavily intoxicated. A jury convicted him of two counts of first degree assault for threatening Jacketta and Harper with a deadly weapon, two counts of second degree assault for injuring Rude and Berumen, and criminal mischief.
The Court’s Holding
The court affirmed. Lovins waived any claim that the trial court should have ordered a separate mental-condition evaluation because defense counsel expressly agreed to use the already-completed sanity evaluation for that purpose to avoid delaying trial. The court also held that the trial court properly declined proposed instructions highlighting mental-condition evidence and explaining NGRI procedures, because the instructions were either covered elsewhere, potentially confusing, or not required.
The court found no plain error in the absence of a self-defense instruction, which Lovins neither pursued at trial nor requested. It further held that testimony explaining the phrase “dummy their ass” was not improper expert testimony, that sufficient evidence supported the first degree assault convictions based on Lovins’s repeated rifle volleys toward Jacketta and Harper, and that the trial court properly excluded minimally supported testimony that Lovins was a “pretty good shot.”
Key Takeaways
- An express agreement to use an existing sanity evaluation as a mental-condition examination waives a later complaint that a separate examination was required.
- A trial court need not give instructions that unduly highlight particular evidence or address procedural matters not relevant to the jury’s decision.
- Repeatedly firing a rifle toward officers, striking their cover, and sending rounds near them can establish a deadly-weapon threat supporting first degree assault.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that defendants must preserve mental-health evaluation and jury-instruction issues in the trial court. Strategic agreement to proceed without an additional examination eliminates appellate review of the resulting claim.
It also distinguishes conduct that merely causes harm from conduct that communicates a threat: the officers here saw Lovins raise and fire his rifle in their direction during multiple volleys, supporting the jury’s finding that he threatened them.