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 the night of the incident, police responded to a stabbing scene. Lieutenant Miller encountered the victim, who described his attacker. Miller found Defendant, David Florez, matching the description. During an attempt to pat-down Florez for weapons, Florez did not comply and eventually displayed a knife. Despite orders to drop the knife, Florez made a threatening gesture towards Officer Martinez. Florez was taken into custody after retreating and becoming compliant. No knife was found on Florez, but a knife with potential blood and tissue was found nearby and admitted as evidence (paras 2-5).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the jury instructions were fundamentally flawed for omitting the essential element that the knife must be found to be a deadly weapon for a conviction of aggravated assault upon a peace officer (deadly weapon) (para 7).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the omission of the deadly weapon element in the jury instructions did not constitute fundamental error because the evidence indisputably established the knife as a deadly weapon and the defendant did not contest this element at trial (paras 10, 13).

Legal Issues

• Whether the omission of the deadly weapon element in the jury instructions constituted fundamental error in the convictions for aggravated assault upon a peace officer (deadly weapon) (para 7).

Disposition

• The convictions for two counts of aggravated assault upon a peace officer (deadly weapon) were reversed and the case was remanded for a new trial (para 16).

Reasons

• Per ATTREP, J. (MEDINA, J., DUFFY, J., concurring): The court agreed with the defendant that the jury instructions were fundamentally flawed for omitting the requirement that the jury must find the knife to be a deadly weapon. This omission was deemed a fundamental error because a pocketknife is not per se a deadly weapon under the applicable statute, and the jury must make a determination on this element. The court found that the evidence did not indisputably establish the knife as a deadly weapon and that the defendant did not concede this element at trial. Consequently, the defendant was deprived of his fundamental right to have the jury decide each element of the charged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt. The court concluded that this error necessitated a reversal of the convictions and a remand for a new trial (paras 7-15).