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 case involves an incident on June 24, 2015, where the Child-Appellant, Nayeli C., was involved in an argument with her mother, Aracely Rodriguez. During the altercation, Nayeli grabbed her cell phone from her mother's blouse, resulting in scratches on her mother. Nayeli was subsequently charged with misdemeanor battery upon a household member (para 1).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Child-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred by denying a motion for a mistrial after a prospective juror was mistakenly released before jury selection and abused its discretion by allowing the mother to be recalled for rebuttal testimony (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Contended that no reversible error occurred regarding the juror's release and the recall of the mother for rebuttal testimony did not constitute an abuse of discretion (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Child-Appellant's motion for a mistrial after a prospective juror was mistakenly released from the panel before the actual jury was selected.
• Whether the court abused its discretion by allowing the Child-Appellant's mother to be recalled to testify during the rebuttal portion of the State's case.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the jury’s verdict convicting the Child-Appellant of misdemeanor battery upon a household member (para 16).

Reasons

• TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge (JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge, M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge concurring): The court found no reversible error in the release of juror number twelve, as the Child-Appellant did not demonstrate that the jury selected was not fair and impartial. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the Child-Appellant's mother to provide limited rebuttal testimony. The court reasoned that the Child-Appellant failed to show prejudice from the mother's rebuttal testimony, which was tailored to address a new question from the jury regarding the incident. The court emphasized that the district court's decisions were within its discretion and did not result in manifest error or prejudice to the Child-Appellant (paras 7-15).