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 by a jury for stalking and criminal damage to property. The Defendant was accused of stalking a Victim, violating an order of protection against him, and causing the Victim to fear for her safety. Additionally, the Defendant was charged with damaging a police car, with the State needing to prove the ownership of the vehicle and that the Defendant had no permission to cause damage.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions for stalking and criminal damage to property. Contended that there was a reasonable doubt regarding his intent to stalk the Victim or damage the property of another. Asserted that the State failed to prove the distance from where he was located to the Victim’s apartment and the ownership of the damaged police car (paras 2-3).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Maintained that there was ample evidence to support the Defendant's convictions, emphasizing the Defendant's intent in the stalking charge and the sufficiency of the officer’s testimony regarding the criminal damage to property charge (paras 3-4).

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's convictions for stalking and criminal damage to property.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant’s convictions for stalking and criminal damage to property.

Reasons

• Per J. Miles Hanisee, with Jennifer L. Attrep and Megan P. Duffy concurring, the Court considered the Defendant's memorandum in opposition but remained unpersuaded. The Court highlighted its role is not to reweigh evidence or supplant the jury's view. It was emphasized that the jury is free to reject the Defendant’s version of the facts and that appellate courts do not substitute their judgment for that of the jury as long as there is sufficient evidence to support the verdict. The Court also noted that the officer’s testimony was sufficient for the jury to infer that the Defendant did not own the police vehicle and had no permission to damage it. The Defendant's repetition of arguments already considered and rejected was insufficient to demonstrate any error in the proposed disposition of the case (paras 1-4).