State v. T. Carlson

Summary

The Court affirmed Carlson’s conviction for tampering with or fabricating physical evidence. It held that criminal destruction of or tampering with a communication device is not a lesser included offense because the two offenses require materially different intent and purposes: one concerns obstructing communication, while the other concerns impairing the verity or availability of existing evidence. The Court therefore concluded that the District Court properly refused the requested lesser-included-offense instruction.