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 of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon after driving her vehicle towards Mr. Pena and Victim, hitting Victim on the second attempt. This incident occurred after the Defendant discovered the nature of Mr. Pena and Victim's relationship, which led her to feel jealous and angry.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred in denying her motion for directed verdict due to insufficient evidence to support her conviction. Maintained that the evidence did not demonstrate intent to injure the Victim and contended that the lack of a jury instruction defining "deadly weapon" constituted fundamental error.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Supported the conviction, arguing that the evidence presented was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find the Defendant guilty of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon, based on her actions and the circumstances leading to the incident.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motion for directed verdict based on claims of insufficient evidence to support the conviction for aggravated battery (deadly weapon).
• Whether the failure to provide a jury instruction defining "deadly weapon" constitutes fundamental error.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction for aggravated battery (deadly weapon).

Reasons

• Per JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge (RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge, LINDA M. VANZI, Judge concurring):
  The Court found that the evidence presented, including the Defendant's actions of driving her vehicle towards and ultimately hitting the Victim, supported the jury's finding of intent to injure, which is a requisite element of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon. The Court also held that the jury could reasonably rely on this evidence to conclude that the Defendant intended to cause death or great bodily harm by using the vehicle as a weapon. Regarding the jury instruction issue, the Court determined that the Defendant's failure to request an instruction defining "deadly weapon" below precluded her from raising the issue on appeal. Furthermore, the Court was not persuaded that the absence of such an instruction constituted fundamental error, noting that the law includes a broad definition of weapons capable of inflicting dangerous wounds and that the jury was adequately instructed on the essential elements of the crime with the provided definition of a "deadly weapon."