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, Anadasha Mason, was convicted for attempted first-degree murder, aggravated battery, and tampering with evidence following an incident where her husband, Kirk Mason, was found shot in their home. The Defendant had called 911, reporting an intruder had shot her husband. However, the police found the scene suspicious, with no evidence of forced entry and items staged to appear stolen. The Defendant had also reported multiple incidents involving an alleged stalker prior to the shooting, which police investigations found unsubstantiated. The husband survived the shooting but suffered significant injuries (paras 2-14).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Contended that her convictions for attempted murder and aggravated battery violated the prohibition against double jeopardy, argued the district court erred in denying her motion to suppress statements made to the police, claimed the jury instruction on tampering with evidence was erroneous, and argued there was insufficient evidence to support her convictions (paras 19-20, 25, 33, 39).
• Appellee (State): Conceded that the Defendant’s convictions for both attempted murder and aggravated battery violated the prohibition against double jeopardy but disputed other claims made by the Defendant (para 20).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant’s convictions for attempted murder and aggravated battery violate the prohibition against double jeopardy.
• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant’s motion to suppress her statements made to the police.
• Whether the jury instruction on tampering with evidence was erroneous.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant’s convictions (paras 19-20, 25, 33, 39).

Disposition

• The court reversed and remanded to the district court for the limited purpose of vacating the Defendant’s conviction for aggravated battery, accepting the State’s concession on the double jeopardy issue. The court found no other error and affirmed the Defendant’s conviction for attempted first-degree murder and tampering with evidence (para 24).

Reasons

• LINDA M. VANZI, Judge (MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge, JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge concurring): The court accepted the State's concession on the double jeopardy issue, requiring the aggravated battery conviction to be vacated. It held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress, as the Defendant did not preserve most of the arguments for appeal and found that she knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived her Miranda rights. The court also found no fundamental error in the jury instruction on tampering with evidence and concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant’s convictions for attempted first-degree murder and tampering with evidence (paras 20-45).