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

• In November 2012, around 3:00 or 4:00 a.m., the defendant and two other men forcibly entered an apartment where three women, a man, and a child were present. The defendant held a gun to one woman's head, made her undress, and touched her inappropriately. Another woman was similarly threatened and assaulted. The child was held in the living room by one of the men during the incident. The men demanded money and left with a television and three cell phones. The defendant was later arrested with a handgun found in his car (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that all convictions lacked sufficient evidence, challenged the denial of relief for the State’s loss of evidence, claimed the jury instructions on the kidnapping conviction resulted in fundamental error, and argued that the two conspiracy convictions violated double jeopardy (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Conceded that one of the conspiracy convictions should be vacated on double jeopardy grounds but otherwise defended the sufficiency of the evidence and the trial court's decisions (paras 9, 17).

Legal Issues

• Whether the defendant's multiple conspiracy convictions violate his right to be free from double jeopardy.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the defendant's convictions for child abuse of J.F. and armed robbery of Blackman.
• Whether the jury instructions on the kidnapping conviction resulted in fundamental error.
• Whether the district court erred in denying the defendant's requested relief for the State’s loss of evidence (paras 8-31).

Disposition

• One of the defendant's conspiracy convictions is reversed on double jeopardy grounds.
• The defendant's convictions for child abuse of J.F. and armed robbery of Blackman are reversed for insufficient evidence.
• The court remands to the district court to vacate the reversed convictions and to resentence the defendant accordingly.
• The defendant's remaining convictions and the district court's decisions are otherwise affirmed (para 37).

Reasons

• ATTREP, Judge (ZAMORA, Judge and IVES, Judge concurring): Agreed with the defendant that his multiple conspiracy convictions violated double jeopardy and that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions for child abuse of J.F. and armed robbery of Blackman. The court found no fundamental error in the jury instructions on the kidnapping conviction and upheld the district court's denial of the defendant's requested relief for the State’s loss of evidence. The court emphasized the principles of substantial evidence review, the specific requirements for child abuse by endangerment, and the legal standards for evaluating double jeopardy claims and jury instruction challenges. The decision to affirm the remaining convictions was based on the defendant's failure to adequately challenge the sufficiency of the evidence for those convictions and the court's determination that the district court did not abuse its discretion in handling the lost evidence (paras 8-36).