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, following a verbal altercation with his ex-girlfriend outside a bar, drove his vehicle toward her and her friend, causing damage to the friend's vehicle. He was charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and criminal damage to property. The Defendant later obtained a repair estimate for the damaged vehicle from his employer for an amount less than $1,000, which was disclosed to the State shortly before trial (paras 3-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Argued that the Defendant's actions constituted aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and criminal damage to property, presenting evidence of the damage exceeding $1,000 and testimony regarding the incident (paras 3, 6, 9, 12-22).
• Defendant-Appellant: Contended that the district court erred in denying his motion for a continuance and challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions. He argued that the damage to the property did not exceed $1,000 and that his actions did not constitute aggravated assault (paras 1, 7, 8-11, 13-22).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motion for a continuance.
• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's convictions for felony criminal damage to property and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (paras 8, 15).

Disposition

• The court affirmed the Defendant's convictions for felony criminal damage to property and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (para 1).

Reasons

• The court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a continuance, applying the factors set forth in State v. Torres and concluding that the circumstances did not favor granting the continuance (paras 8-14). Regarding the sufficiency of the evidence, the court held that there was substantial evidence to support the verdicts of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for both charges. The court noted that the State presented sufficient evidence that the cost of repairing the vehicle exceeded $1,000 and that the Defendant's actions caused the victims to reasonably believe they were in danger of being struck by the vehicle (paras 15-22).