State v. Ares

Summary

The court held that the evidence could support convictions under the act prong of the risk-of-injury statute and that the statute was not unconstitutionally vague as applied to the defendant. It nevertheless reversed the four convictions because the trial court found guilt under the uncharged situation prong rather than the act prong alleged in the information. The case was remanded for a new trial on those four counts, while the remaining convictions were affirmed.