State v. Dominguez - No. 20120240
Case Summary
Esteban Dominguez was convicted of of attempted murder and terrorizing, and appeals from the trial court's order denying his motion to set aside the jury verdict and for a new trial.
Dominguez was charged with attempted murder and terrorizing. The second amended complaint defined murder as (a) "intentionally or knowingly causing the death of another human being" or (b) "causing the death of another human being under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life" under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-16-01(1)(a) and (b), respectively. A jury found Dominguez guilty of attempted murder and terrorizing.
Dominguez moved for a new trial. He argued the jury instructions improperly instructed the jury that Dominguez "acted willfully under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life." He argued the addition of "willfully" misstates the required mental state for murder under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-16-01(1)(b). He also argued the verdict form did not require a unanimous verdict because the jury could find him guilty of attempted murder under either N.D.C.C. § 12.1-16-01(1)(a) or (b). The trial court denied Dominguez's motion for a new trial concluding, "willful" is the proper mental state under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-16-01(1)(b), and the jury verdict form was proper.
On appeal, Dominguez argues the trial court erred by denying his motion to set aside the jury verdict and for a new trial. He argues, as a matter of law, it is improper to charge attempted murder, under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-16-01(1)(b), if the victim does not die. Lastly, Dominguez argues N.D.C.C. § 12.1-16-01(1)(b) is a strict liability offense. In response, the State argues Dominguez's motion for a new trial was untimely, the attempted murder charge was proper under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-16-01(1)(b), and N.D.C.C. § 12.1-16-01(1)(b) is a general intent crime.