Defendant police officers were charged with third-degree assault of child under theory of accomplice liability and official misconduct.
The Superior Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, and State appealed.
The Court of Appeals held that:
- State made prima facie showing that created disputed issues of material fact, as required to survive dismissal of charge for third-degree assault of child;
- State made prima facie showing that created disputed issues of material fact, as required to survive dismissal of charge for official misconduct;
- Official misconduct statute did not require State to prove both that defendants “intended to obtain benefit” and to “deprive another person of lawful right or privilege” in committing unauthorized act;
- Official misconduct statute was not unconstitutionally vague on its face for failure to define “unauthorized act”;
- Official misconduct statute was not unconstitutionally vague as applied to defendants;
- Official misconduct statute was not facially overbroad; and
- Official misconduct statute was not unconstitutionally overbroad as applied to defendants.