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

• In September 2011, the State charged the Defendant with receiving or transferring a stolen vehicle. The grand jury was instructed on the elements required to return a true bill, but the Defendant later argued that the instructions were insufficient as they lacked the element of intent to procure or pass title (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (State): Argued that the grand jury was properly instructed on all essential elements of the offense.
• Appellee (Defendant): Contended that the grand jury instruction was insufficient because it lacked the element of intent to procure or pass title to the vehicle (para 3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the grand jury was properly instructed on all essential elements of the offense of receiving or transferring a stolen vehicle.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's dismissal of the indictment and remanded for further proceedings (para 8).

Reasons

• J. Miles Hanisee, Judge, with Linda M. Vanzi and M. Monica Zamora, Judges concurring, found that the intent to procure or pass title to a vehicle is not an essential element of the offense in question, referencing the case of State v. Bernard. Despite the Defendant's acknowledgment of Bernard's controlling nature and his arguments against its decision, the Court declined to revisit the issue, citing the need for special justification to depart from precedent and the importance of stare decisis. Consequently, the Court concluded that the grand jury had been duly instructed on the essential elements of the offense, leading to the reversal of the indictment's dismissal (paras 5-7).