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 charged with aggravated battery and tried before a jury. After deliberations, the jury initially returned a verdict of guilty for battery, a lesser included misdemeanor. Shortly after, a juror indicated that the foreman signed the wrong verdict form, stating the jury had unanimously agreed the Defendant was guilty of aggravated battery, not battery. The jury was then reassembled, and upon polling, each juror affirmed the verdict of guilty for aggravated battery with great bodily harm (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that (1) reassembling the jury to correct its verdict violated double jeopardy principles, (2) the judge improperly communicated with the jury, requiring a mistrial, and (3) the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction of aggravated battery (great bodily harm) (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: The specific arguments of the Plaintiff-Appellee are not detailed in the provided text.

Legal Issues

• Whether reassembling the jury to correct its verdict violated double jeopardy principles.
• Whether the judge's communication with the jury was improper, necessitating a mistrial.
• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction of aggravated battery (great bodily harm).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, upholding the Defendant's conviction for aggravated battery (great bodily harm) (para 1).

Reasons

• Per Ives, J. (Hanisee, C.J., and Bogardus, J., concurring):
  Double Jeopardy: The court held that the jury was not functionally discharged and that double jeopardy principles did not prohibit reassembling the jury to correct its verdict. The jury remained under the court's control and was not exposed to outside influences that could have tainted the corrected verdict (paras 5-9).
  Judge’s Communication with the Jury: The court found that the judge's communication with the jury did not constitute an improper communication that would necessitate a mistrial. The communication occurred after the jury had completed its deliberations and recognized its own error, indicating no prejudice to the Defendant (para 10).
  Sufficiency of the Evidence: The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction of aggravated battery with great bodily harm. The evidence showed that the Defendant intended to injure the Victim and that the Victim suffered great bodily harm as a result of the Defendant's actions (paras 11-18).