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, after a three-year separation from Lolita Chavez, with whom he shared a seventeen-year relationship and two children, picked her up with the intention of spending the night together in hopes of reconciling. During the drive, the Defendant became angry, consuming beer and assaulting Chavez with the beer bottle and threatening her with a knife. He stopped the truck in an isolated area, brandishing the knife and threatening her life. They eventually continued to their destination, and Chavez reported the incident five days later (para 3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the jury was improperly instructed on the deadly weapon element of both aggravated assault and aggravated battery charges and contended that there was insufficient evidence for his convictions (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the jury was improperly instructed on the deadly weapon element of both aggravated assault and aggravated battery.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence for the Defendant's convictions.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's convictions for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon against a household member and aggravated battery with a deadly weapon against a household member (para 1).

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge (M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge, EMIL J. KIEHNE, Judge concurring):
  The court reviewed the Defendant's claims under a fundamental error review due to the lack of objection at trial to the jury instructions. It was determined that the jury instructions, although not tracking the language of standard UJIs and separating the definition of a "deadly weapon" into a different instruction, did not constitute fundamental error. The court reasoned that the instructions sufficiently required the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the objects used were deadly weapons. The separate instruction on the definition of a deadly weapon closely followed statutory language and the UJIs' anticipated use and purpose of the weapon. The court also found that the State presented sufficient evidence to support the convictions, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and disregarding contrary evidence and inferences. The testimony of Chavez supported each element of the charges, and the jury was entitled to determine that the knife and beer bottle fell within the statutory definition of a deadly weapon. The court concluded that the jury instructions were adequate and did not constitute fundamental error, affirming the Defendant's convictions (paras 4-24).