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's flight from a police officer, leading to a standoff with law enforcement in his cousin's trailer home. During the incident, the Defendant threw two baggies, one containing methamphetamine and the other marijuana, out of the vehicle he was driving. The standoff resulted in damage to the trailer, which was compensated by an insurance company.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the admission of uncharged bad-act evidence was plain error, the denial to call a rebuttal witness was an abuse of discretion, the restitution order was invalid, and the two tampering convictions violated double jeopardy protections.
• Appellee: Contended that the evidence of uncharged misconduct was admissible, the denial of the rebuttal witness was justified, the restitution order was valid, and did not contest the double jeopardy claim regarding the tampering convictions.

Legal Issues

• Whether the admission of uncharged bad-act evidence constituted plain error.
• Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying the request to call a rebuttal witness.
• Whether the district court’s restitution order is valid.
• Whether the two tampering convictions violate the double jeopardy protection against multiple punishments for the same offense.

Disposition

• The conviction for tampering with evidence (marijuana) was reversed on double jeopardy grounds.
• The remaining convictions were affirmed.

Reasons

• ATTREP, Chief Judge, YOHALEM, Judge, and WRAY, Judge, concurring:

  The court found no plain error in the admission of uncharged bad-act evidence as the Defendant did not demonstrate how his substantial rights were affected (paras 3-5).

  The denial of the request to call a rebuttal witness was not an abuse of discretion. The district court correctly identified the testimony as alibi evidence, which was not disclosed before trial as required, and found that the lack of notice prejudiced the State (paras 6-7).

  The restitution order was deemed valid. The court determined there was a direct relationship between the crime of resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer and the damages caused during the standoff, justifying the restitution order to the insurance company (paras 11-13).

  On double jeopardy grounds, the court agreed with the Defendant that only one of the two tampering with evidence convictions could stand due to the single act of throwing both baggies out of the vehicle. The conviction for the lesser charge (marijuana) was reversed, and the court remanded to vacate this conviction (paras 14-17).