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

• On June 20, 2014, after a disagreement with his roommate, Nicole Sandbeck, the Victim, Skyler Nunnelly, was confronted by Nicole's boyfriend, the Defendant, Joseph Faggion. The Defendant aggressively attacked the Victim, including choking and throwing him to the ground, and later threatening him with a pocketknife. The Defendant also exposed his genitalia and threatened to kill the Victim, who eventually managed to leave and contact law enforcement. A letter describing the incident, typed by the Victim's mother, was sent to law enforcement five days later (para 2).

Procedural History

• District Court of Lincoln County, Daniel A. Bryant, District Judge: The Defendant was indicted and found guilty of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and battery (para 3).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred by omitting the deadly weapon essential element from the jury instructions for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and contended that there was insufficient evidence to support convictions for both charges. Additionally, argued that the district court erred in allowing the State to read into evidence a letter created by the Victim and his mother, claiming it was hearsay without qualifying exceptions and its prejudice outweighed its probative value (paras 4, 10-11).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court committed fundamental error by failing to properly instruct the jury on the essential element of the aggravated assault charge.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's convictions for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and battery.
• Whether the district court erred in allowing the State to read into evidence a letter created by the Victim and his mother (paras 4-5, 10).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's battery conviction.
• The Court of Appeals reversed the Defendant's conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and remanded for a new trial on this charge (para 13).

Reasons

• Per Julie J. Vargas, with Stephen G. French and Emil J. Kiehne, Judges, concurring:
  The Court found that the jury instruction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon was deficient because it failed to include the essential element of using a "deadly weapon" as defined by law. Since a pocketknife is not per se a deadly weapon, the jury should have been instructed to determine if the pocketknife used could cause death or great bodily harm, which it was not (paras 5-8).
  The Court concluded that the omission of the deadly weapon instruction could have led the jury to convict the Defendant based on a deficient understanding of the law, constituting fundamental error. Therefore, the conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon was reversed (para 9).
  Regarding the sufficiency of evidence, the Court found that the evidence presented at trial, particularly the Victim's testimony, was sufficient to support the Defendant's battery conviction. However, due to the flawed jury instruction on the aggravated assault charge, the Court did not need to fully address the sufficiency of evidence for this charge beyond noting that the given instructions were the law of the case for their review (paras 10-11).
  The Court declined to decide on the admissibility of the letter created by the Victim and his mother, as its use upon retrial could not be predicted (para 12).