State v. Alicea

Summary

The court held that convictions for intentional assault and reckless assault were not legally inconsistent because the two mental states could relate to different statutory results even though the defendant committed one act against one victim. It rejected the argument that different injuries were required and held that the state was not barred from defending the consistency of the verdicts on appeal because it did not change its factual theory and the jury had been properly instructed. The judgment affirming the convictions was affirmed.