TO: Jeanne Smith
FROM: David Gilbert
RE: Mt. Pisgah Investigation
DATE: October 20, 1999
AN INQUIRY BASED ON COMPLAINT FROM THE TELLER COUNTY CORONER
The Teller County Coroner, Dr. Deborah Smith, alleges that during the course of an investigation, involving bones discovered on Mt Pisgah, she was lied to and subject to obstruction of her portion of the investigation by the Teller County Sheriff s Office.
March 21, 1999 unidentified skeletal remains were reported to and recovered by the Teller County Sheriff's Office. A woman reported that her son had come home with a human skull, which he got from a friend: The friend said that the friend's dog had brought the skull home about two weeks earlier. Detective Olmstead in recalling missing person's reports believed that the skull might belong to 44 year old Richard Holmes who was reported missing in 1997 after leaving an apparent suicide note with his girlfriend. The Coroner and Sheriff's office began their investigation and ultimately found what they believe to be Mr Holmes final resting place on Mount Pisgah in June of l999. A group called Necrosearch assisted in locating the remains. Among the bones found were an ankle bone with a healed fracture (consistent with a reported injury) and a broken rib bone with a healed fracture which was not consistent with Mr. Holmes' reported condition.
1. Ms Smith alleges that a Michael Jeffries of the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis called the Teller County Sheriff s Office asking to speak with her, the Coroner, but was instead routed to a sheriff's officer instead of being immediately transferred to the Coroner's office. Ms. Smith said that Mr. Jeffries was surprised and upset by this. Ms. Smith alleges that this is just part of a pattern of obstruction of her investigation by the Teller County S.O.
I spoke with Mr. Jeffries (314) 538-4124 on October 18, 1999 who told me that he was first directed to speak with Detective Olmstead when he called the S.O. Mr. Jeffries had received the original request for information from both the S.O. and the Coroner personally. Mr Jeffries was informed by the S.O. they no longer needed the information but that the Coroner did still want whatever records were available and they immediately transferred him to her number. The Coroner was not available so an individual took his name and number and the Coroner called him back within one or two days. When she called back they had an extended conversation about the records she was requesting and he gave her as much information as he could about what may be available and where it could be obtained. Mr. Jeffries passed the records request on to the particular office that formally handles the requests. He informed her that the medical records specifically are handled in a different office and he gave her that information.
According to Mr Jeffries, the S.O. was helpful, cooperative and "professional" in communication with him and made sure that he was aware that the Coroner still needed the records even though the S.O. no longer was requesting them. Mr Jeffries stated that the S.O. did nothing to interfere with his efforts to speak with the Coroner, but instead helped facilitate the communication. Mr. Jeffries never cancelled the Coroner's request for records based on conversation with the S.O.
2. Dr Smith alleges that after she had requested records to be used in identifying Mr. Holmes from the National Personnel Records Center, she was told by a Ms. Santos at the Center that the S.O. called and cancelled the request that she had made for these materials.
I spoke with Ms Santos (314) 538-4199 on October 18, 1999. She recalled the incident but she had already handed the file over to their legal department because she had believed from speaking with Dr. Smith that the Coroner was threatening some sort of lawsuit over this issue. For that reason Ms. Santos did not have access to dates and times of certain communications.
Ms. Santos works for the National Personnel Records Center. She recalls receiving a request for records on Mr. Holmes. The original request came from the Teller S.O. with the coroner's name and information attached to it. She also recalls receiving a separate request from the Coroner herself. After turning over the request to the proper authorities in her office, she received a second request from the Coroner and Ms. Santos decided to call the S.O. to find out what additional information was being requested.
The S.O. at that time said they were not requesting additional information but they then referred Ms. Santos to Deborah Smith and Ms Santos spoke with Dr. Smith on the Phone. Ms. Santos informed the Coroner about medical records that may be available at a different government office and directed her to that office. Ms. Santos said at no time did the S.O. cancel a request for information made by the coroner nor did they ever try to impede or interrupt the flow of information between Ms. Santos and Dr. Smith. She said that Dr. Smith made it clear that she thought the S.O. was trying to interfere with her but that was not the case with respect to Ms. Santos dealings with the S.O.
3. Dr. Smith states that on or about March 23, 1999, she called the S.O. to ask if they had certain photos of Mr. Holmes to be used for facial reconstruction purposes. Dr. Smith was told by Det. Olmstead he didn't think so but he would check. Later the same week Dr. Smith called 2 more times and was given the same response at first but told in the second call that Detective Olmstead had not yet had contact with Mr Holmes girlfriend Ms. Hartfield and that he therefore didn't have photos that she could presumably provide. Dr. Smith states that on May 5, 1999 she learned that the S.O. did have the photos and was in contact with Ms. Hartfield and had been in contact with her "all along". Dr. Smith says she realized at this point that the S.O. had been Iying to her.
I spoke with Detective Nick Olmstead on October 18, 1999. Mr. Olmstead can pinpoint the date he located and collected evidence materials from Ms Hartfield because he documented this on his evidence invoices. The Detective had contact with Ms. Hartfield and recovered photos of the missing person, Mr. Holmes, on March 31, 1999 (the week following the coroner's calls). While the detective has no documentation regarding when he first discussed the photos with Dr. Smith he is certain it was very close to the day he received the photos if not actually on March 31. He remembers personally showing her the photos because they were nude photos of Mr Holmes taken by the girlfriend and he v, as apologizing to her that those were the photos they had to deal with. Detective Olmstead states that he never lied to or mislead Dr. Smith because he in fact had not had contact with or photos from Ms. Hartfield when the Coroner called. Further his recollection is that he did show the photos as weE1 as talk about the photos with the Coroner soon after he had them. Detective Olmstead says he had absolutely no motive to try to conceal the photos from the coroner and it was and still is his practice to share all of his information and evidence with all parties to his investigations. Detective Olmstead recalls that in early may he was sharing work done by Officer Bonomo with the Coroner which involved computer comparisons which utilized the recovered photos. The Coroner expressed no surprise or indignation at that time about not being aware of the photos and that, in part, is one of the reasons Detective Olmstead recalls he had already shown those photos to Dr. Smith.
4. Dr Smith states that the attitude of the S.O. is reflected in the fact that despite all evidence to the contrary, the S.O. refuses to accept that at least one or more of the recovered bones appear not to belong to Mr. Holmes. (Subsequent work by Dr. Smith did establish that the skull at least is in fact the skull of the missing individual- Richard Holmes) One example that Dr Smith repeatedly used was that Detective Olmstead when told about a fractured rib which was inconsistent with a chest x-rav obtained by the Coroner suggested that perhaps the x-ray tech had reversed the x-rav. Dr. Smith points out that this of course would result in reverse imaging of the heart and we know by looking at the x-ray we are reading it correctly.
Detective Olmstead agrees that he did suggest to the Dr. that the x-rav film could be reversed but when told that that could not be the case he accepted her statement Detective Olmstead also insists that the Dr. to this date has still not approached the S.O. and requested that they look into the possibility that bones found near the bones of Richard Holmes are not from Mr. Holmes body. Dr. Smith insisted that the S.O. was told by others such as Dr. Hoffman who assisted in unearthing the remains and other professionals that " there clearly is a second body", but Detective Olmstead denies this. Detective Olmstead say's that the S.O. has never been approached with evidence of a second body by the coroner or anyone else.
I have spoken a few times with Dr. Smith and have asked her a number of times over the course of these discussions whether she feels we might resolve any of this by having a meeting with all of the relevant parties. Dr. Smith has said that she will not meet with the S.O. because they have lied to her. Ms. Smith has said that the S.O. should admit that they have lied and tried to obstruct her investigation and apologize to her.
Dr. Smith does not trust the Teller County Sheriff's office to properly trade information with her and feels she needs to obtain court orders to get the information she needs from them. Dr Smith told me that the reputation of the S.O. is poor and that from what she gathers much of the community feels that members of the Sheriffs office are "idiots" and generally incompetent. Dr. Smith feels that "she has the votes" to force a recall of the Sheriff right now and feels that others in law enforcement would like to see him recalled.
Dr. Smith stated that she and many in Teller County have a poor opinion of the District Attorney Jeanne Smith believing that she is part of the same "good old boy network" as the Sheriff. Dr. Smith said she doesn't know when Jeanne Smith comes up for re-election but that she will "pay for it politically" if she tries to cover up the Sheriff's wrongdoing in this investigation.
I have reviewed the facts presented in light of government corruption, fraud and misuse of office statutes pursuant to Colorado Law. No evidence of any abuses are found. I can find no indication that any office or official deliberately attempted to hide, conceal or alter evidence or in any matter obstruct or impede an investigation of the Teller County Coroner. Indeed, individuals that Dr. Smith urged me to contact, including Ms Santos and Mr Jeffries from the National Personnel Records Center dispute her suggestion that the Sheriff's Office attempted to prevent her from receiving information or documentation. Both individuals contacted said that the Sheriff's office immediately put them in touch with the Coroner.
I am concerned at this point based on opinions disclosed to me by the Coroner that future death investigations may be compromised if the working relationship between the Coroner and the Teller County Sheriff's Office do not improve. I recommend that we attempt to facilitate some sort of communication between these parties if Dr. Smith would be amenable. Detective Olmstead would be willing to meet with the Coroner.
Office of the District Attorney
Fourth Judicial District
105 East Vermijo Avenue
Colorado Springs, Colorado 80903
(719) 520-6169 / FAX (719) 520-6210
February 7, 2000
Deborah R. Smith
Teller County Coroner
911 Ponderosa Way
Woodland Park, CO 80863-9003
Dear Dr. Smith,
I have reviewed yow letter of February 2, 2000 alleging additional evidence of wrongdoing by the TCSO and your request that our office prosecute the TCSO for a violation of C.R.S. 29-1-115 "malfeasance in office". I would note that C.R S. 29-1-115 does not address issues that you have raised in your dispute with the TCSO. You have presented no evidence that the Sheriff's Office has violated the laws regarding preparing budgets, budget estimates, or other budget issues.
Nevertheless, I have review the information you have provided in light of your claim that the Sheriff's Office is involved in obstruction of justice and/or official misconduct. I can find no justification from either the information you have provided, or from the information I have gathered, to conclude that the Sheriff's Office has violated any law in their dealings with you.
If you wish, you may effectively "appeal" our decision declining to prosecute the Sheriff's Office by following the procedure specified in C.R.S. 16-5-209. We would welcome the opportunity to have a hearing in which all of the facts and circumstances of this can be aired if you feel that this may help finally resolve this dispute.
We continue to implore you to reconsider your position, previously stated, that you will not sit down with thc Sheriff or representatives of that office in the interest of mending the working relationship. We believe that a meeting could go a long way toward restoring the communication and trust necessary to properly serve the citizens of Teller County.
David A. Gilbert
Chief Trial Deputy District Attorney
4th Judicial District of Colorado
Deborah R. Smith, M.T. (A.S.C.P.), Ph.D. Home: (719) 687-5619
Coroner Pager (719) 577-1724
911 Ponderosa Way
Woodland Park, CO 80863-9003
Ms. Jeanne M. Smith
June 14, 2000 District Attorney of the Fourth Judicial
District 105 E. Vermijo
Colorado Springs, CO 80903
Dear Ms. Smith
Mr. Gilbert stated in a letter February 7, 2000 that you can find no evidence that the Teller County Sheriff's Office (TCSO) has violated any law in their dealings with me. If, as I had requested, Gilbert had obtained a copy of the official TCSO Report on Case 99-0811, he would have uncovered the Sheriff's criminal activities. The following is a summary of violations I believe were committed by the TCSO in the Richard Holmes case. Violations have been documented in other cases, but I will give you that evidence when we meet to discuss the charges against the Sheriff.
TCSO Case M9-0811 -- Violations of:
CRS 18-8-610 -- Tampering with Physical Evidence
1 . Falsifying the official TCSO Report by claiming Mike Hoffman, the forensic anthropologist, stated there was a 99.8% probability the bones belonged to Holmes.
2. Omitting from the Official Report any mention of the left rib with the healed fracture that Mike Hoffman stated could NOT belong to Holmes. Excluding evidence that refutes your theory is just as much falsification of evidence as is manufacturing false evidence that supports your theory.
3. Although Olmsted had been told repeatedly that the rib could not be Holmes' rib, when it was announced that the remains indeed included bones of at least one other individual, the SO publically maintained that 'all bones belong to Holmes':
A. Sept.-Oct. 1999, Sheriff Fehn publically denied knowledge of this rib and insisted the Forensic Anthropologist had positively identified the remains as Holmes'. Olmsted publically admitted knowing about the rib, but stated the x-ray was flipped. These comments were reiterated numerous times on both TV and in newspapers. Had the SO backed down from their position, the worst they could have been charged with was violation of CRS 18-8-114, and this might have been dealt with quietly by the Sheriff's resignation.
B. Fall 1999, the Colorado Sheriff had an article by a Jean Elisabeth (Jean Olmsted?) submitted by the TCSO, that was practically verbatim from the TCSO Official Report.
CRS 18-8-114 -- Abase of Public Record
1. Making a deliberately false entry in the TCSO report that Mike Hoffman stated there was a 99.8% probability that the bones belonged to Holmes.
2. Making a deliberately false entry in an official document by omitting from the TCSO report any mention of the left rib with the healed fracture that Mike Hoffman stated could NOT belong to Holmes.
CRS 18-2-201 -- Conspiracy
Unless Det. Olmsted falsified the entries in the TCSO Case Report 95~-08l 1 of his own volition, conspiracy had to have occurred that involved at least Det. Olmsted and Sheriff Fehn, and possibly Undersheriff Dougherty, Sgt. Woodward, and Deputy Ezard who were also intimately involved in this case.
CRS l8-8-707 -- Tampering with a witness
Olmsted's false testimony to the DA's office during the course of Mr. Gilbert's 'investigation' (documented in my letter of Nov. 7, l999) may have been encouraged by Sheriff Fehn in order to cover-up the existence of the falsified official report.
CRS 18-8-108 -- Compounding
Around the time that Dave Gilbert concluded his 'investigation', Det. Olmsted was promoted to Sergeant. Was this 'pecuniary benefit' awarded to Olmsted in return for lying convincingly to the DA and for falsifying evidence in the TCSO Official Report?
CRS 18-8-404 or 405 -- First or Second Degree Official Misconduct
All the above infractions are also instances of Official Misconduct.
Failure to inform me crucial evidence (Penrose x-rays) and the witness, Patricia Hartfiel, had been located is also official misconduct.
Following are excerpts from the official TCSO Report (complete with typos) supporting the above allegations that the Sheriff and his employees violated numerous state statutes. Page numbers refer to the page numbers in the enclosed TCSO Case Report.
TCSO Case No. 99-08ll: Death of Undetermined Origin
C.R.S. 18-8-114. and 18-8-404 or 40S
Statements by Det. Nick Olmsted & Deputy Mike Ezard:
On pages 7-19 they describe in detail their 4 meetings with Patricia Hartfiel, the girlfriend of Richard Holmes, thereby confirming the statements she made to me in her letter of Nov. l5, l999.
Page 18: Statement by Det. Nick Olmsted, March 31, l999
"Miss Hartfiel also explained that there might possibly be x-rays of Mr. Holmes at Penrose Hospital where he was treated on an outpatient basis, some time before his disappearance. Miss Hartfiel also gave investigators Mr. Holmes' mother's new name and address."
NOTE: I believe that concealing evidence and witnesses is a crime -- especially when I specifically asked about Patricia Hartfiel and the SO had promised to keep me informed of any new developments. In addition, my repeated requests for information regarding the next-of-kin were always met with the response, "The file is unavailable." At one point, Deputy Ezard went so far as to reply to my request by stating the Sheriff didn't want that information given out, and that the SO was going to handle ALL contacts with the family. This is impairing availability of a public record, a violation of CRS 18-8-114. All of their efforts to withhold information and witnesses from me can be construed as Official Misconduct, violations of CRS 18-8-404 or 405.
C.R.S. 18-8-610; C.R.S. 18-8-114: C.R.S. 18-2-201
Mike Hoffman's evaluation of all bones recovered and their comparison with x-rays took place on 6-18-9g. From this analysis Dr. Hoffman determined that:
1. There was a 90% probability that tbe left ankle bone with the healed fracture was Holmes';
2. A left rib with a healed fracture could not be Holmes'. (He reaffirmed this on 8-17-99 after I had obtained the chest x-ray from Penrose Hospital that TCSO had known about since 3-31-99!)
Deputy Ezard was informed of these findings on 6-18-99, and Det Olmsted was informed on 6-21-99 Curiously, these findings are NOT entered in the official TCSO Report. On numerous occasions between 6-21-99 and the time the TCSO closed their case, I repeated to Olmsted the fact that the rib could not be Holmes' rib. Again, these comments are not included in the official TCSO Report, although Olmsted admitted to Mr. Gilbert he had been told the rib could not belong to Holmes. The only other entries in the report between the time that I collected the bones from TCSO (6-16-99) and the Sheriff closed the case are:
1. June 17, describing retrieval of the skull from CSPD; 2. July 7, regarding the possibility that Holmes' dentures had been made by a dentist in the Fort Morgan area.
Page 30: Statement by Det. Nick Olmsted, 7-20-99
''On July 20, 19997 I, Detective Olmsted, along with Sheriff Fehn discussed the circumstances surrounding the identification of the bones found as noted in this report. It is the opinion of this detective and Teller County Sheriff Frank Fehn that this case should be closed due to circumstantial identification of the items found at the gravesite as well as items found near the trailer located at 2119 Teller 1, Teller County, Colorado."
The circumstantial evidence used to close this case included:
1. Suicide note left for girlfriend
2. Shreds of clothing and a Greenpeace ball cap found on Mt. Pisgah
3. Upper plate of dentures (which the dentist who made Holmest dentures could not identify, and that forensic odontologist Dr. Joe Gentile could not be sure fit the skull)
4. Hair found among the remains
5. Pitting of the mandible that is consistent with heavy drug use
6. P. 32: "And finally, Dr Hoffman states that there is a 99.8 percent probability that the bones found, based on his forensic testing and other circumstantial evidence as noted earlier in this report, are the bones or the final remains of the alleged victim, Richard Dean Holmes."
NOTE: #6 is a blatant lie. The onlv mention whatsoever of the anthropologist's findings in the entire official TCSO Report is on March 29 (p. 14 -- when the rib had not yet been recovered and no x-rays had been obtained for comparison purposes). No update was added upon examination of the bones recovered by NecroSearch or upon comparison of all bones with Holmes' x-rays on 6-18.
Obviously, an ankle with 90% probability and a rib with 0% probability of being Holmes' do not correlate with a 99.8% overall probability that all bones are Holmes'! Therefore, statement #6 was falsified to enable the TCSO to close their case, a violation of CRS 18-8-610 and 18-8-114. If, as the opening statement for this date implies, collusion between the Sheriff and Olmsted was involved, then it is also a violation of CRS 18-2-2-201.
3 bones out of the roughly 100 bones recovered had distinctive features usable for identification purposes. The left ankle with a healed fracture is mentioned in the official TCSO Report, as is the cranium. However, there is absolutely no mention anywhere in the entire 37 page official TCSO Report of the very distinctive left rib with a healed fracture that cannot belong to Holmes! Det. Olmsted admitted to Mr. Gilbert that he had been told the rib was not Holmes' and that he had suggested the x-ray had been flipped. He reiterated this several times to the press. As I informed Olmsted 10 or more times that this rib was NOT Holmes' rib, there can be no INNOCENT reason to exclude mention of it from the TCSO Report. However, the case file must include other documentation that contradicts the official TCSO Report, unless photos and log entries for 'B50' are purged from #1 & #2 that follow:
1. TCSO photographed every bone in situ before picking them up and sealing in evidence bags.
2. The bones were listed in a log, given an evidence number, and described for the record.
3. Olmsted mentioned this rib to me before I ever collected the remains from TCSO for examination by Dr. Hoffman.
4. Dr. France of NecroSearch remembers this bone specifically, although she never had ths opportunity to compare it with the x-rays.
5. Dr. Hoffman opened the sealed evidence bags, recording their contents, in the presence of witnesses.
TCSO KNEW the 'rib' existed, therefore they had an absolute obligation to mention it in the official report. If they truly thought the rib was Holmes', this evidence and the possible explanations for resolving its discrepancies should have been included in the official TCSO Report. It was a 'bone of contention' and could not simply be ignored! However, Sheriff Fehn's motto has always been, ''If it isn't written down, it didn't happen," and it would seem he felt that his problems would be solved if there was no mention of this bone in the official TCSO Report.
When the 'easy' answer didn't fit, they simply falsified evidence to make it fit! Clearly, the failure even to mention this 'rib' in the official TCSO Report is deliberate falsification of an official public record in order to close a case where the forensic evidence did not support the Sheriffs conclusion. When publically faced with an unwelcome solution to the puzzle (one they SHOULD have anticipated), they resorted to lies, denials, and accusations. Public servants who try to shift blame on others when their illegal actions are uncovered destroy the honesty, integrity, and credibility of the entire TCSO.
Given the obvious criminal intent involved in excluding the rib from the official report (although it is surely included in the photographic and log evidence from the NecroSearch recovery venture), and the SO's subsequent refusals to recant their decision, this seems a clear-cut violation of both CRS 18-8-610, CRS 18-8-114, and probably CRS 18-2-201. This action is especially heinous when the TCSO closed their case based solely on circumstantial evidence and falsifying a statement attributed to Mike Hoffman, yet another violation of these 3 statutes. I had originally called the Sheriff incompetent for closing a case where the forensic evidence did not support his conclusions. I now realize I was being too kind -- this is felonious behavior!
C.R.S. 18-8-707; C.R.S. 18-2-201
Around the time Mr. Gilbert concluded his 'investigation' of this case, Detective Olmsted was promoted to Sergeant. In my experience, someone who has botched a very public, high-profile investigation is not normally promoted! I suspect this 'pecuniary benefit' was awarded to Olmsted in return for convincing Mr. Gilbert of their innocence, and for helping the Sheriff falsify the official TCSO Report. If so, this also involves witness tampering on the part of the Sheriff, a violation of CRS 18-8-707. Olmsted is also guilty of violating CRS 18-8-610, 18-8-114, and probably 18-2201 for knowingly making false entries in the TCSO report.
Clearly the investigation of my original complaint of Aug. 21, 1999 should have included a close scrutiny of Case Report 99-0811 by a trained investigator. We have been played for fools by the TCSO, and unfortunately Mr. Gilbert willingly played right into their hands. I trust the shortcomings of your original 'investigation' will be remedied and appropriate action taken immediately.
I reaffirm my intention to press charges against the Sheriff for his illegal activities. (It is my understanding that the Fremont County Sheriff was removed from office a few years ago for similar reasons.) Necessarily, charges must also be filed against Nick Olmsted, and possibly others. However, plea bargains from the subordinates in return for their testimony against the Sheriff might be a viable alternative. In view of the Sheriff's refusal to 'come clean' about the falsified TCSO report and his subsequent attempts to discredit me and the consulted experts, I will show him absolutely NO mercy.
If your association with Sheriff and Mrs. Fehn affects your ability to do your duty, I trust you will turn the investigation over to a jurisdiction unknowledgeable of the Sheriff and his employees. Steps have already been taken to ensure that the Sheriff's wrongdoings will become public knowledge, whether as part of criminal proceedings against him or in defense of my opinion of the TCSO that has been cited as 'grounds' for a spurious recall against me.
I have a great deal of additional evidence that corroborates the above violations as well as other TCSO case files that document other violations by the TCSO, and I will turn that information over to you or the jurisdiction handling the case when we meet. It is self-evident that Mr. Gilbert failed to look into the matter adequately, and I must ask that another individual be assigned to the case.
Deborah R. Smith, Coroner
Office of the District Attorney
Fourth Judicial District
105 East Vermijo Avenue
Colorado Springs, Colorado 80903
(719) 520-6169 / FAX (719) 520-6210
July 10, 2000
Ms. Deborah Smith
Teller County Coroner
P.O. Box 1886
Woodland Park, CO 80866
Dear Ms. Smith:
We received your letter of June 14th requesting yet again that we file criminal charges against Sheriff Fehn and/or his deputies for what you believe to be criminal violations in the course of their investigation into the discovery of certain bones in Teller County. Your letter did not raise new issues. As we stated to you some time ago, we do not find any support for pursuing a criminal charge against the Sheriff or his deputies for their handling of this investigation. We also indicated to you at that time that there is a statutory remedy if you feel our declination of criminal prosecution is arbitrary and capricious.
Very truly yours,
Jeanne M. Smith
District Attorney 4th Judicial District of Colorado
Excerpts from Colorado Revised Statutes
(1) A person commits compounding if he accepts or agrees to accept any pecuniary benefit as consideration for:
Refraining from seeking prosecution of an offender; or
Refraining from reporting to law enforcement authorities the commission or suspected commission of any crime or information relating to a crime.
(2) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the benefit received by the defendant did not exceed an amount which the defendant reasonably believed to be due as restitution or indemnification for harm caused by the crime.
(3) Compounding is a class 3 misdemeanor.
18-8-707 Tampering with a witness or victim
(1) A person commits tampering with a witness or victim if he intentionally attempts without bribery or threats to induce a witness or victim or a person he believes is to be called to testify as a witness or victim in any official proceeding or who may be called to testify as a witness to or victim of any crime to:
Testify falsely or unlawfully withhold any testimony; or
Absent himself from any official proceeding to which he has been legally summoned, or
Avoid legal process summoning him to testify.
Tampering with a witness or victim is a class 4 felony.
18-8-114 Abuse of public records.
(1) A person commits a class 1 misdemeanor if: (a) The person knowingly makes a false entry in or falsely alters any public record; or (b) Knowing the person lacks the authority to do so, the person knowingly destroys, mutilates, conceals, removes, or impairs the availability of any public record; or (c) Knowing the person lacks the authority to retain the record, the person refuses to deliver up a public record in the person's possession upon proper request of any person lawfully entitled to receive such record; or (d) Knowing the person has not been authorized by the custodian of the public record to do so, the person knowingly alters any public record. (2) As used in this section, the term "public record" includes all official books, papers, or records created, received, or used by or in any governmental office or agency.
18-8-404. First degree official misconduct.
(1) A public servant commits first degree official misconduct if, with intent to obtain a benefit for himself or maliciously to cause harm to another, he knowingly: (a) Commits an act relating to his office but constituting an unauthorized exercise of his official function; or (b) Refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him by law; or (c) Violates any statute or lawfully adopted rule or regulation relating to his office. (2) First degree official misconduct is a class 2 misdemeanor.
18-8-405. Second degree official misconduct.
(1) A public servant commits second degree official misconduct if he knowingly, arbitrarily, and capriciously:
Refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him by law; or
Violates any statute or lawfully adopted rule or regulation relating to his office.
(2) Second degree official misconduct is a class 1 petty offense.
18-8-610 - Tampering with physical evidence.
( 1) A person commits tampering with physical evidence if, believing that an official proceeding is pending or about to be instituted and acting without legal right or authority, he:
(a) Destroys, mutilates, conceals, removes, or alters physical evidence with intent to impair its verity or availability in the pending or prospective official proceeding; or
(b) Knowingly makes, presents, or offers any false or altered physical evidence with intent that it be introduced in the pending or prospective official proceeding.
(2) "Physical evidence", as used in this section, includes any article, object, document, record, or other thing of physical substance.
(3) Tampering with physical evidence is a ciass 6 felony.