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

• An altercation in a Walmart parking lot escalated into several physical fights. During the incident, the Defendant, driving a white Pontiac Grand-Am, struck two individuals, causing severe injuries, and fled the scene. The Defendant was later detained and admitted to using methamphetamine and heroin prior to the incident. She was charged with two counts of aggravated battery, leaving the scene of an accident, and tampering with evidence for abandoning her vehicle (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court violated her right to an impartial jury by not striking biased venire members, that her convictions for leaving the scene and tampering with evidence violated double jeopardy principles, and that her tampering conviction lacked sufficient evidence (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in juror selection, that there was no double jeopardy violation, and that sufficient evidence supported all convictions (paras 5, 13, 21).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court violated the Defendant's right to an impartial jury by denying motions to strike biased venire members.
• Whether the Defendant's convictions for leaving the scene of an accident and tampering with evidence violate double jeopardy principles.
• Whether the Defendant's conviction for tampering with evidence was supported by sufficient evidence.

Disposition

• The court reversed the Defendant's convictions and remanded for a new trial (para 24).

Reasons

• The court found that the district court abused its discretion by failing to strike a biased juror (Juror 23) who expressed an inability to remain impartial due to bias against drug use, thereby violating the Defendant's right to an impartial jury (paras 7-12). The court also addressed the Defendant's double jeopardy and sufficiency of evidence claims. It concluded that the conduct underlying the Defendant's convictions for leaving the scene and tampering with evidence was not unitary, thus no double jeopardy violation occurred (paras 13-17). Furthermore, the court found sufficient evidence to support all of the Defendant's convictions, including the tampering with evidence charge, but reversed and remanded for a new trial due to the jury selection error (paras 18-23).