State v. Alicea

Summary

The court held that convictions for intentional assault and reckless assault were legally consistent because the two mental states related to different statutory objectives: intended serious physical injury and consciously disregarded risk of death. The fact that the defendant used one act against one victim causing one injury did not make the convictions inconsistent. The court also held that the state had not changed its factual theory on appeal, and that presenting the charges as alternatives at trial did not prevent the court from applying the governing legal rule. The judgment was affirmed.