State v. Ares

Summary

The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support convictions under the act prong of the risk-of-injury statute and that the act prong was not unconstitutionally vague as applied to the defendant. The court nevertheless reversed those convictions because the trial court found guilt under the uncharged situation prong, violating the defendant's constitutional right to notice, and remanded for a new trial on the four risk-of-injury counts. The judgment was affirmed in all other respects.