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 was a passenger in a vehicle that arrived at the scene of an oral altercation between a minor and another individual. The Defendant then exited the vehicle and shouted in Spanish for the minor to hit the other person, which the minor did (para 2).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the evidence was not sufficient to support her conviction for contributing to the delinquency of a minor, contending that her case was different from other cases where adult defendants took affirmative actions to contribute to a child's delinquency. The Defendant also withdrew her appeal regarding another issue not specified in the provided text (para 2).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for contributing to the delinquency of a minor (para 2).

Disposition

• The Court affirmed the Defendant's conviction for contributing to the delinquency of a minor (para 4).

Reasons

• KRISTINA BOGARDUS, Judge, with JACQUELINE R. MEDINA, Judge, and JANE B. YOHALEM, Judge, concurring: The Court found that the Defendant's actions of shouting in Spanish for the minor to hit another person were sufficient to support the jury’s verdict. The Court disagreed with the Defendant's contention that the case was markedly different from other contributing to the delinquency of a minor (CDM) cases and held that the Defendant's actions encouraged the minor's delinquent behavior. The Court also referenced previous case law to support its decision, noting that the statute does not require the defendant’s actions to actually cause the minor’s delinquency and that the jury is free to reject a defendant’s version of the facts. The Court remained unpersuaded by the Defendant's arguments and affirmed the conviction based on the reasons stated in their notice of proposed disposition and the memorandum opinion (paras 1-3).