State v. Abraham

Summary

The court affirmed the defendant's convictions, holding that circumstantial evidence sufficiently established his identity as the perpetrator. It also held that the attempt and reckless-endangerment convictions were legally consistent because the jury could reasonably attribute them to separate acts involving different mental states, and that the home-invasion and attempted-assault convictions did not violate double jeopardy because each offense required proof of an element the other did not.