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, a prisoner, who was convicted for battery upon a peace officer. The incident in question occurred when the corrections officer allegedly called the Defendant a "bitch," which the Defendant claims was outside the scope of the officer's duties (para 2).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the jury should have been instructed on the lesser-included offense of simple battery, contending that the battery occurred under circumstances where the corrections officer was acting outside the scope of his duties by using provocative language (para 2).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred by not instructing the jury on the lesser-included offense of simple battery given the circumstances under which the alleged battery occurred (para 2).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment, rejecting the Defendant's argument for a jury instruction on the lesser-included offense of simple battery (para 6).

Reasons

• Per Jonathan B. Sutin, with concurrence from Roderick T. Kennedy, Chief Judge, and Timothy L. Garcia, Judge, the Court found that the case was controlled by precedent from the Supreme Court in State v. Doe. This precedent established that a private citizen may not use force to resist an officer's actions if the officer is engaged in the performance of his duties, regardless of the legality of the arrest or the officer's use of provocative language. The Court concluded that the corrections officer was within the lawful discharge of his duties at the time of the incident, and therefore, the district court properly refused to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense (paras 3-5).