The State's arguments ignore the essential holding of Richardson: regardless of the sufficiency or specificity of the evidence presented at trial, our appellate courts will not step into the shoes of the jury and convict a defendant of five moving violations of our choice. Here, like in Richardson, Instruction No. 7 did not specify which moving violations Gordon violated.
Similarly, the COA declined the state's invitation to apply harmless error analysis to this situation.
[Update: the state did not file a PR and the mandate issued on November 29, 2010.]