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 of forgery and embezzlement. The case involved allegations of signing checks without permission and with the intent to defraud, spanning a five-year period of embezzlement and a two-year period of forgeries.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the district court erred by refusing her tendered jury instructions on forgery, which added the element of "deceit" not contained in the forgery statute, and erred in denying her motion to dismiss for a speedy trial violation.
• Appellee (State): Defended the jury instructions and the trial court's decision to deny the motion to dismiss for a speedy trial violation, asserting that the instructions were consistent with the statutory definition of forgery and that there was no violation of the Defendant's right to a speedy trial.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in refusing the Defendant's tendered jury instructions on forgery by adding an element not contained in the forgery statute.
• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss for a speedy trial violation.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decisions on both the jury instructions and the motion to dismiss for a speedy trial violation.

Reasons

• ZAMORA, Judge (FRENCH and BOHNHOFF, Judges concurring):
  The Court found that the jury instructions on forgery were consistent with the statutory definition, which includes the intent to defraud as intending to deceive or cheat, thus rejecting the Defendant's argument regarding the addition of elements not present in the forgery statute (paras 3-4).
  On the issue of a speedy trial, the Court applied the Barker v. Wingo balancing test and agreed with the district court's findings that the case was of intermediate complexity, which justified the length of delay before trial. The Court also found that the Defendant failed to demonstrate how the State's alleged discovery violations contributed to the delay, and thus, the period of delay was weighed neutrally. The Court concluded that the Defendant's right to a speedy trial was not violated (paras 5-7).