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 for aggravated battery upon a peace officer and receiving or transferring a stolen motor vehicle. The case involved the Defendant allegedly causing great bodily harm to a peace officer and being in possession of a stolen vehicle, which he committed with two other individuals.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Contended that the district court erred by instructing the jury on an alternative theory of aggravated battery upon a peace officer not contained in the indictment, by instructing the jury on accessory liability, and argued that the convictions are not supported by sufficient evidence (paras 1, 2, 10, 13).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Argued that the jury instruction on an alternative theory of aggravated battery was permissible as it conformed to the evidence presented at trial, that instructing the jury on accessory liability was correct, and that there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's convictions (paras 2, 10, 13).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred by instructing the jury on an alternative theory of aggravated battery upon a peace officer not contained in the indictment.
• Whether the district court erred by instructing the jury on accessory liability.
• Whether the convictions are supported by sufficient evidence.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions for aggravated battery upon a peace officer and receiving or transferring a stolen motor vehicle.

Reasons

• Per ATTREP, J. (HENDERSON, J., and BACA, J., concurring):
  On the alternative theory of aggravated battery upon a peace officer: The court found that the instruction did not constitute an impermissible amendment to the indictment as it did not charge an entirely new offense and did not prejudice the Defendant's substantial rights. The alternative theory was supported by the evidence and was within the scope of the original charge (paras 2-4, 9).
  On accessory liability: The court rejected the Defendant's argument against the accessory liability instruction, citing precedent that abolished the distinction between accessory and principal liability. The Defendant was on notice that he could be charged as a principal and convicted as an accessory, or vice versa, assuming the evidence supported such a charge (paras 10-12).
  On sufficiency of the evidence: The court held that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of both crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. The Defendant's challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence for both charges were rejected because the State presented specific evidence supporting the jury's findings, and the Defendant did not adequately counter this evidence (paras 13-15).