State v. Alicea

Summary

The court held that the defendant's convictions for intentional assault and reckless assault were legally consistent because the offenses required different mental states directed at different statutory results: serious physical injury and risk of death. The court rejected the argument that consistency required separate injuries and concluded that the state had not changed its factual theory on appeal. The court also held that presenting the charges as alternatives at trial did not alter the legal-consistency analysis because the jury was properly instructed to consider each charge separately.