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, while incarcerated, slapped a peace officer in the face when the officer attempted to return her to her designated cell after a dental appointment. The Defendant admitted to the act, explaining that she was in pain and wanted to speak with a lieutenant. The slap caused bruising and a headache to the officer, and other officers had to intervene to complete the task of returning the Defendant to her cell.
Procedural History
- District Court, Curry County: The Defendant was convicted of battery upon a peace officer following a bench trial.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for battery upon a peace officer, asserting that her actions constituted simple battery rather than the charged offense. She also claimed her behavior was influenced by pain from an infected tooth and the officer’s alleged unfair treatment.
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that sufficient evidence supported the conviction, including testimony that the Defendant intentionally and unlawfully applied force to the officer, causing injury and challenging his authority, while acting in a rude, insolent, or angry manner.
Legal Issues
- Was there sufficient evidence to support the Defendant’s conviction for battery upon a peace officer?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant’s conviction for battery upon a peace officer.
Reasons
Per Kennedy J. (Sutin and Robles JJ. concurring):
The Court held that sufficient evidence supported the Defendant’s conviction. The offense of battery upon a peace officer requires proof of intentional and unlawful application of force to a peace officer, causing injury or a meaningful challenge to authority, in a rude, insolent, or angry manner, while the officer is performing lawful duties.
The Court found that the State presented substantial evidence to meet these elements. Testimony established that the Defendant intentionally slapped the officer, causing bruising and a headache, which constituted an actual injury and a meaningful challenge to authority. The Defendant’s resistance and argument with the officer demonstrated a rude, insolent, and angry manner. Additionally, the officer was performing his lawful duties at the time of the incident.
The Defendant’s arguments that her actions were influenced by pain and unfair treatment were unpersuasive, as they did not negate the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the conviction.