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

• Defendant, co-operating a convenience store with her husband, was convicted for resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer. The incident arose when lottery officials, accompanied by police, attempted to retrieve lottery equipment from the store after Defendant's husband became belligerent. Defendant disobeyed police orders to move away from the entrance, where a screwdriver and a box cutter were present, by picking up the items and tossing them into a corner (paras 3-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the officers had no right to enter the private office, and thus were not acting within their lawful authority when ordering her to move from the area (para 4).
• Appellee (State): Maintained that the officers were in the lawful discharge of their duties while assisting lottery officials, thereby justifying their control over Defendant's movement during the incident (para 4).

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer (para 2).
• Whether the officers were acting within their lawful authority when they ordered the Defendant to move away from the entrance (para 4).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of the Defendant for resisting or obstructing a peace officer (para 6).

Reasons

• Per J. MILES HANISEE (MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge, and LINDA M. VANZI, Judge concurring): The court held that viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, a rational trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant resisted, evaded, or obstructed an officer. The officers were deemed to be in the lawful discharge of their duties while assisting lottery officials, which included controlling the Defendant's movement to ensure the safe retrieval of the lottery machine. The Defendant's act of disobeying police orders and handling the items of concern constituted sufficient grounds for her conviction. The court also noted that the scope of officers' duties extends beyond responding to crimes, supporting the lawfulness of their actions in this context (paras 2-5).