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 convicted of two counts of aggravated assault upon a peace officer and one count of unlawful carrying of a deadly weapon on school premises. The incident involved the Defendant, during a mental health crisis, yelling, pacing, and refusing to drop a machete and a knife while in the parking lot of an elementary school late at night. The encounter with police lasted twenty minutes, captured on officers' lapel cameras, showing the Defendant at a distance from the officers, never closer than thirty to fifty feet, and eventually walking away (paras 3, 6-7).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred by not instructing the jury on resisting as a lesser included offense of aggravated assault, contended the State presented insufficient evidence to support his convictions, and claimed the district court improperly polled the jury (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the evidence supported the Defendant's convictions and argued against the need for jury instructions on resisting as a lesser included offense, maintaining that the uniform jury instruction for aggravated assault upon a peace officer was adequate and did not require modification (paras 2, 12-13, 15-17).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred by refusing Defendant’s request for jury instructions on resisting as a lesser included offense of aggravated assault upon a peace officer.
• Whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's convictions.
• Whether the district court improperly polled the jury.

Disposition

• The conviction for unlawfully carrying a deadly weapon on school premises was affirmed.
• The convictions for aggravated assault upon a peace officer were reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial on those counts (para 19).

Reasons

• The Court found that the Defendant was entitled to have the jury instructed on resisting as a lesser included offense of aggravated assault upon a peace officer, given the evidence presented at trial. The Court disagreed with the State's argument that the only distinguishing element between aggravated assault and resisting was the use of a deadly weapon, noting the importance of whether the Defendant's conduct was resistive and abusive versus menacing or threatening, and whether the officers reasonably feared an immediate battery. The Court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to establish the crime of resisting and that it was the highest degree of crime committed by the Defendant during the incident. However, the Court upheld the district court's use of the uniform jury instruction for aggravated assault upon a peace officer, finding it adequately conveyed the law. The Court also found sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for unlawfully carrying a deadly weapon on school premises, rejecting the Defendant's argument that the statute implied a temporal limitation to when school activities were occurring (paras 2-18).