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 case involves the Defendant, Jaime Tavarez, who was convicted for aggravated assault on a peace officer with a deadly weapon. The incident occurred during a physical altercation when police officers attempted to remove the Defendant from his vehicle after informing him of an outstanding arrest warrant and ordering him to exit the vehicle. The Defendant, refusing to comply, eventually drew a loaded handgun from his waistband and raised it in front of him, leading to his conviction (paras 3-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the evidence presented was insufficient to establish that he intended to commit a battery against the officer, suggesting that his actions could have been interpreted as an attempt to rid himself of the loaded gun to avoid injury as he was being removed from his car (para 5).
• Appellee (State): Presented evidence to support the conviction, arguing that the Defendant's actions of drawing and raising a loaded pistol during a physical altercation with police officers constituted an attempt to commit battery against Officer Moen (paras 4-8).

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for aggravated assault on a peace officer with a deadly weapon.

Disposition

• The appeal was denied, and the conviction affirmed (para 9).

Reasons

• The panel, consisting of Judges Zachary A. Ives, J. Miles Hanisee, and Megan P. Duffy, unanimously affirmed the conviction. They reasoned that the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the guilty verdict, was sufficient to support the conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. The court applied a two-step review process, first viewing the evidence in favor of the verdict and then considering whether it supports the verdict beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found that the jury could rationally infer from the circumstances that the Defendant intended to use the pistol to batter Officer Moen when he drew and raised it. The court also rejected the Defendant's argument that his actions were merely preparatory and not a substantial step towards committing a battery, noting that even slight acts in furtherance of the crime can constitute an attempt. The court concluded that the State's evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding that the Defendant's actions went beyond mere preparation, constituting an act in furtherance of a battery of Officer Moen (paras 2-8).