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 living with the victim in a one-room apartment when an altercation occurred. The Defendant struck the victim on the head with a telephone after she refused to give him money and attempted to call the police. He then broke a glass bottle over her head, causing a wound that required 25 stitches. The victim fled the apartment and called 911. Responding officers found her bleeding and hysterical. The Defendant claimed the victim fell down the stairs, but officers found no blood on the stairs and evidence of blood in the apartment (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- District Court, March 19, 2001: The Defendant was convicted of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon against a household member and battery against a household member. He was acquitted of an additional aggravated battery charge and a tampering with evidence charge. The court also classified the Defendant as a serious violent offender under the Earned Meritorious Deduction Act (EMDA) (paras 1, 3, 14).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred in granting the State's petition for an extension of time to prosecute, that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions, and that the application of the EMDA to his aggravated battery conviction was illegal (para 1).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the extension of time was proper, sufficient evidence supported the convictions, and the EMDA classification was consistent with its purpose of addressing violent intentional felonies (paras 7, 14).
Legal Issues
- Was the Defendant's conviction for aggravated battery with a deadly weapon on a household member properly classified as a serious violent offense under the EMDA?
- Did the district court err in granting the State's petition for an extension of time to prosecute?
- Was there sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's convictions?
Disposition
- The Defendant's convictions were affirmed (para 21).
- The classification of the Defendant as a serious violent offender under the EMDA was reversed (para 21).
- The case was remanded for resentencing in accordance with the opinion (para 21).
Reasons
Per Wechsler CJ (Robinson and Vigil JJ. concurring):
Serious Violent Offense Under the EMDA: The court held that third-degree aggravated battery on a household member is not listed as a serious violent offense under the EMDA. The statute explicitly enumerates offenses and their corresponding statutory sections, and the legislature's omission of this specific offense was deemed intentional. The court declined to interpret the statute to include offenses not expressly listed, emphasizing legislative intent and statutory clarity (paras 4-13).
Extension of Time for Trial: The court found that the Defendant waived his right to a timely trial under Rule 5-604 by filing a stipulated motion for a continuance. Additionally, the district court had good cause to grant the extension, and the Defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice resulting from the delay (paras 14-17).
Sufficiency of the Evidence: The court determined that sufficient evidence supported the Defendant's convictions. The victim's testimony, corroborated by responding officers, was credible and adequate for a reasonable jury to find the Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The appellate court declined to reweigh evidence or assess witness credibility, as these are functions of the jury (paras 18-20).