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 attempted tampering with evidence related to a probation violation, specifically for trying to obtain a clean urine test while on probation for a misdemeanor offense.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that she cannot be convicted of attempt to commit tampering with evidence of a probation violation when the underlying crime for which she was serving probation was a misdemeanor offense. She attempted to distinguish her case from State v. Jackson by noting that in her case, the State was aware of the crime for which she was serving probation, unlike in Jackson.
• Appellee (State): Relied on State v. Jackson as pertinent authority, asserting that the crime of tampering with evidence is complete upon committing the prohibited act with the requisite mental state, regardless of the underlying crime for which probation is being served.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant can be convicted of attempt to commit tampering with evidence of a probation violation when the underlying crime for which she was serving probation was a misdemeanor offense.

Disposition

• The Court affirmed the conviction for attempted tampering with evidence.

Reasons

• The Court, led by Judge Roderick T. Kennedy with Judges Jonathan B. Sutin and J. Miles Hanisee concurring, based its decision on the precedent set by State v. Jackson. The Court found that the crime of tampering with evidence is considered complete once the accused commits the act with the necessary mental state, irrespective of the underlying crime for which probation is being served (para 3). The Court was unpersuaded by the Defendant's argument that the result was unfair because it equated the punishment for tampering with evidence of a probation violation for a misdemeanor with that for a felony, emphasizing that tampering with evidence undermines the integrity of the criminal justice system regardless of the nature of the underlying crime (para 4). The Court also noted that the Defendant did not provide any authority to support her position that the underlying offense in a tampering with evidence charge should be the crime for which the defendant was serving probation (para 5).