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 possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine) and battery upon a peace officer. The evidence leading to these convictions was seized from a residence pursuant to a warrant. The Defendant's appeal challenges the denial of his motion to suppress this evidence and contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence seized under a warrant, claiming the affidavit did not establish probable cause. Additionally, contended that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions for possession of methamphetamine and battery upon a peace officer.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Maintained that the affidavit provided a substantial basis for the finding of probable cause to issue the search warrant and argued that there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's convictions.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized from a residence pursuant to a warrant.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's convictions for possession of a controlled substance and battery upon a peace officer.

Disposition

• The appeal was denied, and the Defendant's convictions were affirmed.

Reasons

• Per Ives, J. (Duffy, J., and Yohalem, J., concurring):
  The Court of Appeals held that the affidavit for the search warrant provided a substantial basis for a finding of probable cause, despite the Defendant's challenges. The affidavit's inclusion of nonhearsay information, such as the Defendant's active arrest warrant for trafficking narcotics and observations of suspicious activity at the residence, supported a reasonable inference that evidence of a crime would be found there (paras 4-9). The Court also found that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the Defendant's convictions. For the possession of methamphetamine charge, the Court determined that the jury could reasonably infer that the Defendant had knowledge of and exercised control over the methamphetamine found in the residence (paras 16-18). Regarding the battery on a peace officer charge, the Court concluded that the jury could reasonably infer that the Defendant knew the individuals he battered were peace officers, based on their attire, the manner of their approach, and their verbal identifications (paras 19-21).