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 a violent incident at the home of the defendant's ex-wife, where the defendant entered without permission, assaulted multiple occupants, and threatened them with a knife sharpener. The incident led to the defendant's convictions for aggravated burglary, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, abuse of a child, and battery (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the convictions for aggravated burglary, battery, and child abuse violate double jeopardy and claimed evidentiary errors deprived him of a fair trial (para 1).
• Appellee (State): Contended that the convictions do not violate double jeopardy and defended the district court's evidentiary rulings (paras 5-13, 20-23).

Legal Issues

• Whether the defendant's convictions for aggravated burglary and battery, or alternatively, child abuse, violate his constitutional right to be free from double jeopardy.
• Whether the district court made evidentiary errors that deprived the defendant of a fair trial.

Disposition

• The court reversed the defendant's battery conviction due to a double jeopardy violation but affirmed the other convictions. It also directed the district court to correct a clerical error in the amended judgment and sentence (paras 26-27).

Reasons

• The court found that the defendant's convictions for aggravated burglary and battery were based on unitary conduct, violating double jeopardy principles, and thus vacated the battery conviction (paras 6-8). However, it determined that the convictions for aggravated burglary and child abuse did not violate double jeopardy, as each required proof of a fact the other did not (paras 9-11). The court also addressed evidentiary challenges, upholding the district court's decisions to exclude a video of an argument between the defendant's ex-wife and his girlfriend, to admit cell-phone videos of surveillance footage, and to restrict questioning about the defendant's statements to a detective, finding no abuse of discretion or harmful error (paras 13-24).