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 battery on a household member, criminal damage to the property of a household member, and interference with communications. The appeal concerns an incident where the Defendant's wife, the victim, was observed speaking to others about the trial outside the courtroom after her testimony but while still subject to recall. The district court held a hearing about this incident and warned the victim about potential contempt. The Defendant, through his memorandum in opposition, expressed concerns about possible errors related to this incident but acknowledged a lack of sufficient record to specify any claims of error (paras 1-2).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: The Defendant acknowledges the sufficiency of evidence for his convictions but expresses concerns about potential trial errors related to an incident involving the victim speaking to others about the trial. He requests a review of the full record to identify any specific errors (paras 2-3).
• Appellee: The State, presumably, argued for the affirmation of the Defendant's convictions based on the sufficiency of evidence and procedural correctness, as inferred from the court's decision to affirm (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's concerns about a possible trial error, stemming from an incident involving the victim speaking to others about the trial, warrant a review of the full record and a reassignment to the general calendar for further examination (paras 2-4).

Disposition

• The court affirmed the Defendant's convictions for battery on a household member, criminal damage to the property of a household member, and interference with communications (para 5).

Reasons

• Judges Jane B. Yohalem, Jennifer L. Attrep, and J. Miles Hanisee concurred in the decision. The court considered the Defendant's memorandum in opposition but remained unpersuaded that the concerns raised warranted a deviation from the proposed summary affirmation. The court highlighted the Defendant's agreement with the sufficiency of evidence for his convictions and noted his failure to specify any particular claim of error regarding the incident involving the victim. The court referenced precedent indicating that appellate counsel cannot search the record for unspecified potential errors and emphasized the burden on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law. The generalized concern and lack of specific error identification by the Defendant were deemed insufficient to meet this burden, leading to the affirmation of the convictions (paras 1-5).