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 on a household member with a deadly weapon, false imprisonment, and battery on a household member. The appeal challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting these convictions.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the evidence presented, particularly the victim's testimony, was not truthful and insufficient to support the convictions (para 3).
• Appellee (State): Maintained that the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's convictions, as indicated by the appellate court's reliance on the facts and law presented in the notice of proposed summary affirmance (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the Defendant's convictions for aggravated assault on a household member with a deadly weapon, false imprisonment, and battery on a household member.

Disposition

• The appellate court affirmed the Defendant's convictions for aggravated assault on a household member with a deadly weapon, false imprisonment, and battery on a household member (para 4).

Reasons

• Per Jonathan B. Sutin, J. (James J. Wechsler, J., and J. Miles Hanisee, J., concurring): The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's convictions. The appellate court applied a deferential standard of review, emphasizing that it does not second-guess the credibility determinations of the fact-finder or re-weigh evidence. The court underscored that it is the role of the fact-finder to resolve conflicts in testimony and determine the weight and credibility of the evidence. The appellate court reviewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the guilty verdict, indulging all reasonable inferences and resolving conflicts in the evidence in favor of the verdict. The court concluded that substantial evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, existed to support a verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to every element essential to the convictions, thereby affirming the Defendant's convictions (paras 2-4).