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, Loretta Bowker, was convicted of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon for hitting a Trader Joe’s employee, referred to as the Victim, with her automobile twice in the store's parking lot. This incident occurred after the Defendant refused to produce a receipt for her bag of groceries (para 3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred by (1) inadequately instructing the jury on the elements of aggravated battery, specifically by not including Defendant's proposed amendment to the jury instruction which would require the jury to find that the car was used in a manner capable of causing death or great bodily harm, and (2) not re-questioning the jurors about their outside knowledge of the case immediately following an eight-day delay between jury selection and trial proceedings (paras 1, 4).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Objected to the Defendant's proposed amendment to the jury instruction on the basis that it added an "actual use" element to the aggravated battery charge. Argued that the uniform jury instruction should be used without modification (para 4).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred by failing to submit the Defendant’s proposed amended version of the jury instruction on the elements of an aggravated battery conviction to the jury.
• Whether the district court erred in not re-questioning the jurors regarding their outside knowledge of the case immediately following an eight-day delay between jury selection and trial proceedings.

Disposition

• The appeal was denied, and the conviction for aggravated battery with a deadly weapon was affirmed (para 12).

Reasons

• Per J. Miles Hanisee, with Judges Kristina Bogardus and Zacharay A. Ives concurring:
  The district court did not commit reversible error by denying Defendant’s requested modification to UJI 14-322. Uniform jury instructions are presumed correct, and the court found no precedent or unique circumstances that warranted the proposed amendment. The court concluded that a reasonable juror would not have been confused or misdirected by the jury instruction as given (paras 5-8).
  Regarding the refusal to re-question jurors about media exposure, the court applied an abuse of discretion standard and found no abuse. The court presumed jurors followed its instructions to avoid outside information and noted that mere exposure to publicity does not establish prejudice. The Defendant did not provide evidence that jurors were exposed to or tainted by media publicity (paras 9-11).