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 aggravated assault upon a peace officer with a deadly weapon, tampering with evidence, and resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer. The tampering conviction involved the abandonment of a motor vehicle used in the altercation in a different area, while the obstruction conviction was based on the Defendant's actions towards an officer attempting to arrest her husband. The vehicle, constituting the deadly weapon for the assault charge, apparently belonged to someone else. Evidence indicated that the Defendant abandoned the vehicle with the keys inside and spent two nights hiding in a nearby ditch (paras 4, 7).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that double jeopardy precluded her conviction for tampering with evidence as it was a mere continuation of the conduct supporting her conviction for resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer. Additionally, claimed that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction for tampering with evidence (paras 3, 6).
• Appellee (State): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's conduct supporting the charges was unitary, thus precluding her conviction for tampering with evidence under double jeopardy principles (para 3).
• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for tampering with evidence (para 6).

Disposition

• The motion to amend the docketing statement to add a new issue was denied (para 2).
• The Defendant's convictions for aggravated assault upon a peace officer (deadly weapon), tampering with evidence, and resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer were affirmed (para 8).

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Chief Judge Linda M. Vanzi, Judge Michael E. Vigil, and Judge Stephen G. French, concluded that the conduct supporting the Defendant's charges was not unitary. The tampering conviction was based on distinct conduct involving the abandonment of the motor vehicle in a different area from where the obstruction of the officer occurred. This separation of actions demonstrated sufficient indicia of distinctness to support separate convictions. Furthermore, the Court found that a rational trier of fact could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant intentionally disassociated herself from the vehicle by abandoning it with the keys inside and hiding nearby, thus supporting the sufficiency of the evidence for the tampering conviction (paras 3-4, 6-7).