State v. Abraham

Summary

The court affirmed the defendant’s convictions, holding that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to establish his identity as the masked perpetrator. It also held that the convictions for attempted assault and reckless endangerment were legally consistent because the jury could reasonably have found two separate acts accompanied by different mental states. Finally, the court rejected the unpreserved double-jeopardy claim because home invasion and attempted first-degree assault require proof of different statutory elements.