AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant, Kim Jensen, was convicted of resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer and assault upon a peace officer. The charges stemmed from an incident where Jensen allegedly attempted to commit a battery on Officer Lopez and engaged in conduct that led to her arrest. The incident involved Jensen walking away from a traffic stop, arguing with Officer Lopez, crossing her arms to prevent handcuffing, and later, while in a police vehicle, attempting to kick Officer Lopez.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that due process was violated due to insufficient notice of an alternative theory for conviction and that the convictions for resisting and assault were based on the same course of conduct, thus violating double jeopardy protections.
• Appellee (State): Contended that the Defendant had adequate notice of the State’s alternative theories for the assault charge and that the convictions did not violate double jeopardy protections because the resisting charge and assault charge were separated by sufficient indicia of distinctness.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant had sufficient notice of the State’s alternative theories for the assault charge, thus ensuring due process.
• Whether the convictions for resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer and assault upon a peace officer, based on the same course of conduct, violated double jeopardy protections.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant’s convictions.

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges Katherine A. Wray, J. Miles Hanisee, and Zachary A. Ives, held that:
  Regarding Due Process: The Defendant had adequate notice of the State’s intent to present both the attempted battery and reasonable apprehension theories for the assault charge. Discussions prior to trial and amendments to the criminal information provided sufficient notice to the Defendant, enabling the preparation of a defense against both theories (paras 4-7).
  Regarding Double Jeopardy: The conduct underlying the convictions on the resisting charge and the assault charge was not unitary. The resisting charge related to Defendant’s conduct before the arrest and placement in the police vehicle, while the assault charge related to conduct that occurred after Defendant was arrested and placed in the police vehicle. The distinct nature and objectives of each act provided sufficient indicia of distinctness to avoid a double jeopardy violation (paras 8-10).