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 after a bench trial for two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and one count of criminal damage to property over $1,000. The assault involved throwing rocks at two employees, Alicia Platero and Ursula Bitsuie, of a trading post/pawn business, causing damage to a window, a display case, and a mirror. The Defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions on appeal.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: The Defendant argued that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support the convictions for aggravated assault and criminal damage to property.
• Appellee: The State contended that there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's convictions, including testimonies from the victims and a business manager, as well as the extent of the property damage.

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the Defendant's convictions for two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and one count of criminal damage to property over $1,000.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's convictions for two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and one count of criminal damage to property over $1,000.

Reasons

• Per ATTREP, J. (HANISEE, C.J., and DUFFY, J., concurring): The Court held that the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the guilty verdict, was sufficient to support the Defendant's convictions. The Court relied on testimonies from the floor manager and the victims, who described the Defendant's actions of throwing rocks, which were deemed capable of causing damage and thus considered a deadly weapon. Additionally, the Court found the testimony regarding the cost of the damages, which exceeded $1,000, to be credible and sufficient to support the criminal damage to property conviction. The Defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence was therefore rejected, and the convictions were affirmed (paras 2-7).