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 three offenses: aggravated battery against a household member by strangulation, false imprisonment, and violation of a restraining order prohibiting domestic violence. During jury selection, a juror expressed a bias against anyone accused of assault, leading the Defendant to argue for a new trial on the grounds of jury bias and a violation of his right to be free from double jeopardy, as the convictions for aggravated battery and false imprisonment were based on the same conduct.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Colfax County: The Defendant was convicted of three offenses and appealed the decision, arguing jury bias and double jeopardy.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the jury was biased due to comments made by a juror during voir dire and that the convictions for aggravated battery and false imprisonment were based on the same conduct, violating the right to be free from double jeopardy.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the Defendant failed to show that the juror's comments during voir dire biased the jury and that the convictions did not violate the double jeopardy clause because they were based on distinct conduct.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court violated the Defendant's right to a fair and impartial jury by not dismissing the entire jury panel after a juror expressed bias.
• Whether the Defendant's convictions for aggravated battery against a household member by strangulation and false imprisonment violate the double jeopardy clause.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s entry of judgment and sentence, finding no error in the jury selection process and concluding that the convictions for aggravated battery and false imprisonment were based on distinct conduct, thus not violating the double jeopardy clause.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judge Yohalem writing the opinion, concurred by Judges Bogardus and Henderson, held that:
  The district court did not abuse its discretion in not dismissing the jury panel as the Defendant failed to show actual bias from the juror's comments during voir dire (paras 18-30).
  The Defendant's conduct underlying the convictions for aggravated battery and false imprisonment was not unitary, as evidenced by distinct acts separated by time and differing in severity, thus not violating the double jeopardy clause (paras 31-46).