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 abuse of a child by endangerment, fourth offense DWI (Driving While Intoxicated), and driving while license suspended or revoked. The case centers on the Defendant's appeal against these convictions, particularly challenging the jury instructions related to the child abuse by reckless endangerment charge.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the jury instructions for child abuse by reckless endangerment did not accurately reflect the mens rea (mental state) required by Supreme Court precedent. The Defendant contended that the instructions substituted an objective "law-abiding person" test for an assessment of the defendant's mental state, effectively omitting the necessary mens rea from the crime. Additionally, the Defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions.
• Appellee (State): The specific arguments of the Appellee are not detailed in the provided text, but it can be inferred that the State defended the jury instructions and the sufficiency of the evidence leading to the Defendant's convictions.

Legal Issues

• Whether the jury instructions for child abuse by reckless endangerment accurately reflected the required mens rea as defined by Supreme Court precedent.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's convictions.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's convictions.

Reasons

• The Court, led by Judge Michael D. Bustamante with Judges Timothy L. Garcia and Stephen G. French concurring, addressed the Defendant's challenges. The Court was not persuaded by the Defendant's arguments to reverse the convictions or to transfer or certify the case for Supreme Court review. Specifically, the Court found that:
  The jury instructions for child abuse by reckless endangerment, while challenged by the Defendant, were consistent with Supreme Court precedent. The Court noted that the Supreme Court had previously addressed the validity of the newly adopted Uniform Jury Instruction (UJI) for reckless child abuse and found it to clearly define reckless conduct within the meaning and intention of the precedent case State v. Consaul. As such, the Court of Appeals felt constrained from acting on the Defendant's challenge to the instruction (paras 3-4).
  Regarding the sufficiency of the evidence, the Court rejected the Defendant's challenge, noting that the Defendant did not provide new factual or legal arguments beyond those already presented. The Court affirmed the convictions based on the reasons stated in their first and second notices of proposed summary disposition (para 5).
  The Court also noted that it had denied the Defendant's motion to amend the docketing statement to add a second issue, and thus did not address this matter further (para 6).
  In conclusion, the Court affirmed the Defendant's convictions and directed him to the Rules of Appellate Procedure for any further review of the jury instruction with the Supreme Court (para 7).