State v. King

Summary

Justice Robinson, joined by Justices Palmer and McDonald, dissents from the majority's reversal of the Appellate Court judgment. The dissent agrees that intentional and reckless assault convictions are conceptually not legally inconsistent, but concludes that the prosecutor presented those charges as alternatives and therefore failed to provide constitutionally adequate notice that the state sought convictions for both. The dissent would affirm the Appellate Court's reversal of the convictions. The dissenting judges also contend that appellate courts may not sustain a conviction on a theory not presented to the jury in a coherent and focused manner at trial.