Peo in Int of Jordan

25CA1000 Peo in Interest of Jordan 09-04-2025

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS

Court of Appeals No. 25CA1000
Pueblo County District Court No. 25MH30116
Honorable Amiel Markenson, Judge

The People of the State of Colorado,

Petitioner-Appellee,

In the Interest of Charles Arthur Thomas Jordan,

Respondent-Appellant.

ORDER AFFIRMED

Division A
Opinion by JUDGE BERGER*
Román, C.J., and Bernard*, J., concur

NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e)
Announced September 4, 2025

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

*Sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice under provisions of Colo. Const. art.
VI, § 5(3), and § 24-51-1105, C.R.S. 2025.
¶1 Charles Arthur Thomas Jordan appeals the district court’s

order authorizing the involuntary administration of medications.

We affirm.

I. Background

¶2 Jordan was admitted to the Colorado Mental Health Hospital

in Pueblo (the hospital) after being found incompetent to proceed on

criminal charges. He has been diagnosed with schizoaffective

disorder according to the physician responsible for Jordan’s care

and treatment, Dr. Martin Ahern. After an initial course of

court-ordered medications, Jordan’s condition significantly

improved. However, in Dr. Ahern’s opinion, his condition is likely to

precipitously decline should he not continue on psychiatric

medications. Given Jordan’s history of medication refusal,

deterioration, and associated physical aggression, Dr. Ahern

requested another court order to administer valproic acid

(Depakote) and olanzapine (Zyprexa) after the initial order expired.

¶3 In May 2025, the People filed a petition seeking court

authorization for the requested medications. Consistent with

People v. Medina, 705 P.2d 961 (Colo. 1985), the petition asserted

that (1) Jordan is incapable of effectively participating in reasonable

1
decisions affecting his health and treatment; (2) the requested

treatment is necessary to prevent a significant and likely long-term

deterioration in his mental health condition and to prevent the

likelihood of him causing serious harm to others in the institution;

(3) a less intrusive treatment alternative is not available; and (4)

Jordan’s need for treatment is sufficiently compelling to override

any bona fide and legitimate interest he has in refusing treatment.

¶4 After a hearing, at which both Jordan and Dr. Ahern testified,

the district court granted the petition.

II. Discussion

¶5 A district court may order the involuntary administration of

medication to a patient only if the People prove, by clear and

convincing evidence, each of the four elements outlined in Medina.1

Id. at 973. Jordan doesn’t contest the first, second, or third Medina

1 We recognize that, when the purpose of administering medications

is to restore competency in a criminal case, courts usually must
apply the Supreme Court’s test from Sell v. United States, 539 U.S.
166, 180-81 (2003). However, the parties do not dispute that
People v. Medina, 705 P.2d 961, 973 (Colo. 1985), provides the
appropriate analytical framework here. We agree, given that the
purpose of the involuntary treatment was, in part, to prevent
Jordan from causing serious harm to himself or others. See Sell,
539 U.S. at 181-83.

2
elements. He contends only that the evidence presented at the

hearing was insufficient to prove the fourth. We disagree.

A. Standard of Review

¶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

petitioning party, leaving the resolution of testimonial conflicts and

the determination of witness credibility solely to the fact finder.

People in Interest of Uwayezuk, 2023 COA 69, ¶ 57; People in

Interest of R.C., 2019 COA 99M, ¶ 7. 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

therefrom. R.C., ¶ 7.

B. Analysis

¶7 The fourth Medina element evaluates whether the patient’s

need for treatment is sufficiently compelling to override any

legitimate interest the patient has in refusing treatment. Medina,

705 P.2d at 974. In conducting this evaluation, a court determines

3
“whether the patient’s refusal is bona fide and legitimate and, if so,

whether the prognosis without treatment is so unfavorable that the

patient’s personal preference must yield to the legitimate interests

of the state in preserving the life and health of the patient placed in

its charge and in protecting the safety of those in the institution.”

Id.

¶8 On appeal, Jordan points to Dr. Ahern’s testimony outlining a

list of potential side effects from Zyprexa and Depakote, asserting

that “[t]he list of risks provided by Dr. Ahern is extensive and

severe.” He acknowledges Dr. Ahern’s testimony that he has been

“tolerating the medications well,” but he asserts that this “does not

negate the risk of side effects developing with continued exposure to

the medications.” He claims that he has a legitimate interest in

avoiding such side effects. Further, he asserts a religious reason

for refusing the medications. Specifically, when asked at the

hearing if he had any personal belief that precluded him from

taking pharmaceutical medications, he responded:

Just the Christian Bible based — the book of
Acts, you can’t buy the Holy Spirit with sorcery
money and sorcery is pharmaceuticals. So, it’s
a joint dealing and I just think the Doctor gets
a pharmaceutical bonus from the

4
manufacture[r] to prescribe more medications.
I think it’s a waste of taxpayer’s money.

¶9 He later elaborated that taking the medications was “against

[his] religion.” Asked to explain the basis of his religious objection,

he said, “The Book of Acts, Sorcery in English is translated as

Pharmacia in Greek, Pharmacy in Latin.”

¶ 10 Though the district court did not credit Jordan’s testimony

about his religious objections, it accepted Jordan’s stated religious

beliefs and certain identified side effects — namely, eye twitching

and tiredness — as bona fide and legitimate reasons for refusing

medications. Nevertheless, the court determined that Jordan’s

prognosis without treatment is so unfavorable that his personal

preference must yield to the State’s interests in preserving his life

and health and protecting the safety of those in the institution.

Assuming, as the district court did, that all of Jordan’s objections to

the medication are bona fide and legitimate, we discern no error in

the court’s determination as to the fourth Medina element.

¶ 11 Dr. Ahern testified that, without the requested medications,

Jordan’s mental state will deteriorate and he will likely be a risk to

both himself and others. In particular, Dr. Ahern opined that,

5
without mood stabilizing and antipsychotic medications, Jordan will

experience a long-term decline in his mental condition. Although

Jordan had only ceased taking his medications for three days at the

time of the hearing, hospital staff had already observed him pacing

the unit in the middle of the night, an early sign of deterioration

that Dr. Ahern testified was a “harbinger” of, among other things,

psychotic symptoms, increased delusional preoccupation, and

auditory hallucinations in the days and weeks to come. Further,

Dr. Ahern testified that stopping and starting medications can often

lead to a decreased response to treatment, meaning that a patient’s

baseline functioning even on medications is diminished.

¶ 12 Likewise, although Jordan had not yet decompensated to the

point of dangerousness, Dr. Ahern testified that, without

medications, Jordan becomes “disorganized and delusionally

preoccupied” to the point that he “make[s] threatening comments

and gestures,” posing a risk of harm to others. Indeed, Dr. Ahern’s

affidavit, which was admitted without objection at the hearing,

detailed Jordan’s self-reported history of suicide attempts along

with evidence of self-harm and threatening behaviors toward others

when unmedicated.

6
¶ 13 The district court credited both the contents of the exhibit and

Dr. Ahern’s testimony about Jordan’s prognosis and likely

deterioration and dangerousness. Viewing the evidence as a whole

and in the light most favorable to the petitioning party and

recognizing that the determination of witness credibility rests solely

with the fact finder, Uwayezuk, ¶ 57; R.C., ¶ 7, we conclude that

there is sufficient evidence to support the court’s determination as

to the fourth Medina element.

III. Disposition

¶ 14 The order authorizing the involuntary administration of

medication is affirmed.

CHIEF JUDGE ROMÁN and JUDGE BERNARD concur.

7