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 November 16, 2007, Officer Jordan Hengst attempted to stop the Defendant for a vehicle registration issue. The Defendant failed to stop, leading to a high-speed chase during which the Defendant's vehicle nearly collided with Officer Hengst's patrol car. After losing control and crashing, the Defendant fled on foot but was apprehended. He showed signs of intoxication and was found in possession of marijuana. The Defendant was charged with aggravated assault on a peace officer, DWI, and possession of marijuana. Before trial, a verbal agreement was made between the prosecutor and the Defendant, leading to the dismissal of some charges in exchange for the Defendant not requesting a lesser included offense instruction for the felony charge.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Prosecutor: Argued that the Defendant had agreed not to seek any lesser included offense instructions in exchange for the dismissal of several charges.
• Defendant: Contended that the agreement only precluded requesting a lesser included instruction on assault on a peace officer, not on resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying a jury instruction on a lesser included offense to the crime of aggravated assault on a peace officer based on a stipulated agreement.
• Whether the district court erred in managing closing arguments.
• Whether statements made by the prosecutor amounted to prosecutorial misconduct.
• Whether voluntary intoxication is a defense to a general intent crime.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the Defendant’s conviction of aggravated assault on a peace officer and affirmed on the remaining issues.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judge Linda M. Vanzi authoring the opinion, and Judges Jonathan B. Sutin and Timothy L. Garcia concurring, found that the stipulated agreement between the Defendant and the prosecutor was ambiguous and did not clearly preclude the Defendant from requesting an instruction on resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer. The court concluded that the district court erred in denying the instruction based on the stipulated agreement. The court also addressed the Defendant's other arguments, finding no error in the district court's management of closing arguments, no prosecutorial misconduct in statements made during voir dire, and confirmed that voluntary intoxication is not a defense to a general intent crime like aggravated assault on a peace officer.