State v. King

Summary

The court held that the defendant's convictions for intentional and reckless first-degree assault were legally consistent because the jury could reasonably have found separate reckless and intentional stabbing conduct, or could have found mental states directed toward different criminal results. The court also held that the defendant received constitutionally sufficient notice of both charges from the substitute information, the evidence, and the jury instructions, notwithstanding an ambiguous closing-argument statement. The judgment reversing the convictions was reversed, and the case was remanded with direction to affirm the trial judgment.