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 the early hours of February 21, 2014, Defendant Leroy Lindsey, along with his sister and her boyfriend, were staying at Samantha G.'s trailer home. Lindsey forcibly entered the bedroom where Samantha and her two daughters, A.S. and S.S., were sleeping and attacked Samantha. Both children attempted to intervene; A.S. tried to call the police while S.S. yelled for Lindsey to stop. After the initial attack, Lindsey retrieved a knife from the kitchen and cornered his victims in the bathroom, where he stabbed Samantha and A.S., causing severe injuries, while S.S. watched from atop a washing machine (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, his convictions for three counts of child abuse violated his constitutional right to be free from double jeopardy, the district court failed to vacate his convictions for alternative Counts 1 and 4 after merging them for sentencing, and instructional error mandates reversal of his convictions for negligent child abuse due to fundamental error (para 1).
• Appellee (State): Contended that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, the convictions did not violate the double jeopardy clause, and the jury instructions were appropriate and did not constitute fundamental error (paras 6-22).

Legal Issues

• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's convictions.
• Whether the Defendant's convictions for three counts of child abuse violated his constitutional right to be free from double jeopardy.
• Whether the district court failed to vacate the Defendant's convictions for alternative Counts 1 and 4 after merging them for sentencing.
• Whether instructional error mandates reversal of the Defendant's convictions for negligent child abuse due to fundamental error.

Disposition

• The court affirmed the Defendant's convictions but agreed that the district court inadvertently failed to vacate the alternative counts in Counts 1 and 4, remanding with instructions to do so (para 1).

Reasons

• The court found substantial evidence supporting the verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for all charges against the Defendant, including the attack and endangerment of S.S. (paras 6-10). It rejected the Defendant's double jeopardy claims, distinguishing between the separate and distinct acts of endangerment that occurred in the bedroom and the bathroom, thus affirming the convictions for child abuse against both A.S. and S.S. (paras 11-19). The court also directed the district court to vacate the convictions for the alternative counts in Counts 1 and 4, acknowledging an inadvertent failure to do so previously (para 20). Lastly, the court rejected the Defendant's claim of instructional error, finding no fundamental error in the jury instructions provided (paras 21-22). The decision was unanimous, with Judge Stephen G. French authoring the opinion, and Chief Judge Linda M. Vanzi and Judge Julie J. Vargas concurring (para 24).