People v. Hale

Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of threatening a public official and aggravated battery. Clear and obvious error, which affected fairness of Defendant's trial, as jury instruction given suggested that a generalized threat to officer was sufficient. Instruction deprived jury of guidance needed to decide whether Defendant's threat contained specific facts indicative of a unique threat to the officer. Evidence sufficient to prove aggravated battery beyond a reasonable doubt, as jury could infer that officer perceived Defendant's placing her teeth on his forearm as a dangerous or possibly injurious act, and an insulting and provoking act, as he pulled his arm away. (POPE and KNECHT, concurring.)