State v. Lugert
, 2008 ND 145,
State v. Blunt
, 2008 ND 135,
Personal benefit to the defendant is not an element of the crime of misapplication of entrusted property.
At a preliminary hearing in a criminal case, the State is not required to prove with absolute certainty or beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime occurred, but need only produce sufficient evidence to establish probable cause that a crime occurred
and that the defendant committed it.
The district court may consider credibility of witnesses at a preliminary hearing only when, as a matter of law, the testimony is implausible or incredible. When there is a mere conflict in the testimony, a question of fact exists for the jury, and
the judge must draw the inference favorable to the prosecution.
A "bonus" is a premium paid in addition to what is due or expected, or a payment in addition to or in excess of the compensation that would ordinarily be given.
State v. Mastre
, 2008 ND 121,
A criminal judgment for terrorizing is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).
State v. Curtis
, 2008 ND 108,
750 N.W.2d 438
A criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process is not absolute, and does not guarantee the right to secure the attendance and testimony of any and all witnesses.
A defendant alleging a violation of his right to compulsory process has the burden of showing that the testimony would have been both favorable and material to his defense.
The civil dispute doctrine, which allows a court to dismiss criminal proceedings if the matter should have been adjudicated civilly, is limited to cases where there is a legitimate property or contract dispute that is better suited for resolution in
a civil matter.
State v. Nastrom
, 2008 ND 110,
750 N.W.2d 432
Under three-year statute of limitations for felony prosecution, willful failure to pay child support is committed when there is a failure to pay child support, which includes arrearages, in an amount ordered by a court or other governmental agency
having authority to issue orders.
State v. Vaagen
, 2008 ND 83,
A criminal conviction of failure to pay child support is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).
State v. Hidanovic
, 2008 ND 66,
747 N.W.2d 463
In considering whether to grant a new trial on the ground of juror misconduct, a district court must decide whether there was misconduct and, if so, whether the misconduct could have affected the verdict of a hypothetical average juror.
A juror generally may not testify about matters or statements occurring during the course of the jury's deliberations, but may testify regarding the receipt of extraneous prejudicial information or improper outside influence.
If evidence of possible extraneous prejudicial information or outside influence is discovered, the proper procedure is to cease investigation to reduce the possibility of juror taint from extrajudicial pressures and to notify the court so it can
conduct appropriate questioning.
The rule excluding juror testimony about statements during deliberations does not preclude evidence to show a juror lied during voir dire.
To prevail on a motion for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, a defendant must show the evidence was discovered after trial, the failure to learn about the evidence at the time of trial was not the result of the defendant's lack of
diligence, the newly discovered evidence is material to issues at trial, and the weight and quality of the newly discovered evidence would likely result in an acquittal.
In ruling on the relevancy of evidence, a district court has broad discretion to balance the probative value of the evidence against the risk of unfair prejudice.
Determining the admissibility of an out-of-court photographic identification of a defendant involves a two-step inquiry to determine whether the photographic identification procedure was suggestive, and whether the identification was, under the
totality of the circumstances, reliable.
State v. Loomer
, 2008 ND 69,
747 N.W.2d 113
For a not guilty plea, the Rules of Criminal Procedure do not require specific notice of a mandatory minimum sentence.
Unless a defendant was prejudicially misled, neither an error in the citation nor its omission is a ground to dismiss the indictment or information or to reverse a conviction under N.D.R.Crim.P. 7(c)(2).
State v. Jacobsen
, 2008 ND 52,
746 N.W.2d 405
An order revoking probation is reviewed under a two-step analysis, determining (1) whether the factual finding of a probation violation was clearly erroneous and (2) whether the district court abused its discretion when it decided revocation of
probation was warranted.
Although the State generally has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated the terms of probation, when revocation proceedings are triggered by a failure to pay restitution, the defendant has the burden to
raise and prove an inability to pay restitution as ordered by the court.
A sentencing court generally may revoke probation and impose incarceration for failure to pay restitution only after considering the reason for nonpayment and whether there are adequate alternative forms of punishment, but this limitation does not
apply when restitution is ordered as part of a plea agreement.
State v. Skarsgard
, 2008 ND 31,
745 N.W.2d 358
Under N.D.R.Crim.P. 12(b), a defendant is required to make certain motions before trial, and failure to do so may waive defenses under the rule.
The Supreme Court may grant relief from a waiver if the movant establishes just cause.
State v. Gress
, 2008 ND 20,
747 N.W.2d 136
Conviction of attempt to steal a vehicle is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (4).
State v. Carlsen
, 2008 ND 16,
747 N.W.2d 136
Conviction of reckless endangerment under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (4).
State v. Desjarlais
, 2008 ND 13,
744 N.W.2d 529
There is no obvious error under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b) unless there is a clear deviation from a clearly established rule of law.
State v. Schmeets
, 2007 ND 197,
742 N.W.2d 513
The threshold question for determining whether a person tampered with constitutes a "witness" is whether the individual charged with tampering with that person had a reasonably founded belief that the person tampered with would testify.
The person tampered with in a witness tampering case need not be included on a witness list filed in a case in order for an individual to be convicted of tampering with that witness.
State v. Barendt
, 2007 ND 164,
740 N.W.2d 87
A fact-finder decides the credibility of witnesses, and is not required to believe a witness's testimony, even when no direct evidence is offered to the contrary.
State v. Moilwa
, 2007 ND 156,
742 N.W.2d 839
A district court criminal judgment for criminal trespass is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).
State v. Tassler
, 2007 ND 153,
742 N.W.2d 839
Revocation of probation and sentence is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).
State v. Kunze
, 2007 ND 143,
738 N.W.2d 472
When a trial court concludes it is necessary to physically restrain a defendant at trial in front of the jury, the court must consider less restrictive, less prejudicial methods of restraint.
To provide for meaningful appellate review, a trial court must articulate its reasons for placing the defendant in physical restraints on the record, including a discussion of less prejudicial alternatives.
State v. Muhle
, 2007 ND 131,
737 N.W.2d 636
A court's evaluation of the trustworthiness of a child's out-of-court statement about alleged sexual abuse, may include these non-exclusive factors: (1) the spontaneity and consistent repetition of the statements, (2) the mental state of the
declarant, (3) the use of terminology unexpected of a child of similar age, and (4) a lack of motive to fabricate.
If a defendant has an opportunity to cross-examine a witness at trial, the admission of testimonial statements would not violate the Confrontation Clause.
The proper remedy for unfair surprise is a continuance, but one must be requested.
The term "statement," as used in N.D.R.Crim.P. 16(f), means a written or otherwise recorded statement made by the witness, codefendant, or other person.
State v. Edwards
, 2007 ND 113,
736 N.W.2d 449
A sentencing court may correct an illegal sentence at any time.
State v. Alexander
, 2007 ND 71,
734 N.W.2d 342
Convictions of unlawful entry into a vehicle are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (7).
State v. Rogers
, 2007 ND 68,
730 N.W.2d 859
When deciding the sufficiency of the evidence, the evidence and all reasonable inferences are viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, and this Court determines whether a rational factfinder could have found guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt. Only if the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction will this Court allow a judgment of acquittal.
An unchallenged jury instruction becomes the law of the case.
The Double Jeopardy Clause bars retrial when the prosecution has failed to produce sufficient evidence to prove its case.
For the purposes of N.D.C.C. 12.1-22-03(1), and based on the ordinary meanings of the statutory words, "dwelling" includes a hotel room.
For an offense to be a lesser-included offense, it must be impossible to commit the greater offense without committing the lesser.
State v. Halvorson
, 2007 ND 21,
729 N.W.2d 334
Conviction of felony reckless endangerment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).
State v. Ernst
, 2007 ND 11,
729 N.W.2d 334
District court order denying a motion to correct a sentence is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4) and (7).
State v. Stensaker
, 2007 ND 6,
725 N.W.2d 883
On appeal, jury instructions are fully reviewable.
Jury instructions are reviewed as a whole and must correctly and adequately inform the jury of the applicable law even though part of the instructions when standing alone may be insufficient or misleading.
The intentional gathering and preparation of ingredients, whose purchase, possession, or transportation is regulated by state law, with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine provides sufficient evidence for criminal attempt to manufacture
methamphetamine.
State v. Zahn
, 2007 ND 2,
725 N.W.2d 894
A party charged with violating a protection order cannot challenge the validity of the protection order without first presenting the argument to the court issuing the order.
A court order must be obeyed until stayed, modified, or reversed by orderly review.
To convict a defendant of violating a protection order, the State need only prove it served a protection order on the defendant and the defendant's conduct violated the order.
State v. Davis
, 2006 ND 222,
725 N.W.2d 588
Convictions for carrying a concealed firearm and possessing a short-barreled shotgun are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).
State v. Dailey
, 2006 ND 184,
721 N.W.2d 29
After a jury's verdict has been announced, a trial judge may explain to a jury what will occur after the trial has ended.
State v. Manning
, 2006 ND 125,
716 N.W.2d 466
Relevant evidence is evidence having a tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.
Relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of
cumulative evidence.
State v. Wheeler
, 2006 ND 95,
719 N.W.2d 384
Convictions of gross sexual imposition, encouraging the deprivation of a minor, and contributing to the delinquency of a minor are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1) and (3).
A judgment should accurately reflect the proceedings and under N.D.R.Crim.P. 36, a court may correct a clerical error in a judgment due to oversight.
State v. Feist
, 2006 ND 21,
708 N.W.2d 870
When the nature of a plea agreement is ambiguous, a trial court should clarify the existence of a plea agreement on the record.
The court must allow the defendant to withdraw a plea of guilty whenever the defendant proves withdrawal is necessary to correct a manifest injustice.
The failure of a district court to substantially comply with the requirements of N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(c) in conjunction with ambiguity on the record as to what sort of plea negotiations existed between the parties creates a manifest injustice requiring
the withdrawal of a guilty plea.
State v. Schrum
, 2006 ND 18,
709 N.W.2d 348
A criminal defendant's sentence must be credited for time served in custody on that charge.
State v. Stevenson
, 2005 ND 196,
709 N.W.2d 21
Conviction of terrorizing is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).
State v. Noorlun
, 2005 ND 189,
705 N.W.2d 819
On appeal, jury instructions are considered as a whole to determine whether they correctly and adequately advise the jury of the applicable law and do not mislead or confuse the jury.
Whether documentary evidence should be excluded for lack of adequate foundation is within a trial court's discretion, and adequate foundation may be established by circumstantial evidence, including the events preceding, surrounding, and following
the transmission of the document.
A conviction rests upon insufficient evidence only when, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and giving the prosecution the benefit of all inferences reasonably to be drawn in its favor, no rational fact-finder
could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
An information filed in district court before a preliminary examination is not invalid unless the defendant objects to the information before entering a plea.
State v. Laib
, 2005 ND 191,
705 N.W.2d 815
For the crime of terrorizing, the critical inquiry is whether the defendant intended to place others in fear for their safety.
For the crime of terrorizing, a threat does not have to be made verbally.
For the crime of terrorizing, a communication, either verbal or nonverbal, is sufficient to be a threat if a reasonable person could conclude that it was a threat under the circumstances.
State v. Moore
, 2005 ND 183,
709 N.W.2d 21
Trial court's denial of petitioner's motion to withdraw his guilty plea is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).
State v. Allen
, 2005 ND 162,
704 N.W.2d 573
Conviction of robbery is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).
State v. Jackson
, 2005 ND 137,
701 N.W.2d 887
When the court dismisses a criminal information on the basis of its legal interpretation of a criminal statute, and not upon resolution of any factual element of the crime charged, the ruling is not a judgment of acquittal but a quashing of the
information from which the State has a right to appeal.
When a sexual offender changes employment address, he must register the change with law enforcement within ten days.
State v. Keller
, 2005 ND 86,
695 N.W.2d 703
The right to a lesser-included-offense instruction requires that the offense be a lesser included offense of the greater, that the evidence be such that a jury could rationally find the defendant not guilty of the greater offense and guilty of the
lesser, and generally, that the instruction be requested.
North Dakota's current lesser-included-offense law has its origin in the North Dakota Rules of Criminal Procedure, not N.D.C.C. 12.1-01-04(15).
For an offense to be a lesser included offense, it must be impossible to commit the greater offense without committing the lesser offense.
Criminal facilitation is not a lesser included offense of conspiracy to commit murder.
Criminal facilitation is not a lesser included offense of attempted murder.
Reckless endangerment is not a lesser included offense of attempted murder.
State v. Arth
, 2005 ND 46,
694 N.W.2d 22
A sentence of five years' imprisonment with the last two years suspended for violation of a domestic violence protection order is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).
State v. Jaster
, 2004 ND 223,
690 N.W.2d 213
A current attorney-client relationship with the prosecutor is one of the exclusive causes of an implied bias that warrants dismissal of a juror.
A defendant must exhaust all peremptory challenges before objecting to the denial of a challenge for cause.
A party's right to exercise peremptory challenges is not violated if the party uses a peremptory challenge to exclude a juror the district court refused to excuse for cause, and no biased juror sits.
A statement is inadmissible hearsay only if it is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
The pattern jury instruction on reckless endangerment erroneously omits the term "particular" from the definition of the crime.
State v. Ernst
, 2004 ND 221,
691 N.W.2d 193
Denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).
State v. Hilgers
, 2004 ND 160,
685 N.W.2d 109
A trial court is not obligated to issue every subpoena requested by a defendant.
An appellant is required to file a transcript on appeal and assumes the consequences of a failure to do so. An appellate court will decline to review an issue over which it is unable to provide meaningful review.
State v. Smestad
, 2004 ND 140,
681 N.W.2d 811
A trial court may allow testimony as to the context of events, if the testimony is required to prove the essential statutory elements of the crime and the district court has weighed the probative value against the prejudicial nature of the testimony.
State v. Tweeten
, 2004 ND 90,
679 N.W.2d 287
A district court may not dismiss a case with prejudice for prosecutorial misconduct unless a hearing is held in which it is determined by clear and convincing evidence the prosecution has proceeded in bad faith.
State v. McClary
, 2004 ND 98,
679 N.W.2d 455
A jury verdict is inconsistent when, under the jury instructions and evidence, the verdict cannot be rationally reconciled.
A trial court may not question the jury about how it arrived at its verdict.
State v. Helm
, 2004 ND 88,
679 N.W.2d 770
Conviction for class C felony terrorizing is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (7).
State v. Provost
, 2004 ND 68,
688 N.W.2d 402
Conviction for simple assault on a peace officer is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (4).
State v. Bollingberg
, 2004 ND 30,
674 N.W.2d 281
A court may look to other parts of a search warrant to determine whether the command portion suffers from a clerical error.
When there is no indication of any logical reason why a requested search was prohibited in a search warrant, this may be evidence of a clerical error.
State v. Skalicky
, 2004 ND 1,
676 N.W.2d 813
Denial of post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).
State v. Heckelsmiller
, 2004 ND 3,
676 N.W.2d 813
Conviction of Criminal Trespass is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).
State v. Zephyrin
, 2003 ND 155,
674 N.W.2d 21
Criminal convictions for robbery, felonious restraint, and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3), (4) and (7).
State v. Robinson
, 2002 ND 183,
655 N.W.2d 84
Defendant's sentence for accomplice to attempted murder is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).
State v. Jones
, 2002 ND 163,
652 N.W.2d 369
Without a showing of excusable neglect, a trial court's denial of a request for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal is not an abuse of discretion.
State v. Paul
, 2002 ND 75,
647 N.W.2d 706
The trial court's judgment of conviction for the unauthorized use of a motor vehicle is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).
State v. Norby
, 2002 ND 71,
642 N.W.2d 924
Defenses or objections based on defects in the institution of a prosecution or on defects in the criminal complaint must be raised prior to trial, unless the complaint failed to charge an offense or the district court did not have jurisdiction.
State v. Morrison
, 2002 ND 41,
642 N.W.2d 532
Judgment of conviction for assaulting a police officer is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).
State v. Aipperspach
, 2002 ND 40,
642 N.W.2d 532
Denial of motion to suppress and judgment of conviction for abuse of child in violation of N.D.C.C. 14-09-22 summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).
State v. Roberson
, 2002 ND 24,
639 N.W.2d 690
While a defendant's disruptive conduct in court may, in some instances, be sufficient grounds to require a competency hearing, not all disruptive defendants are incompetent to stand trial. Rather, the conduct may be contempt of court.
State v. Randall
, 2002 ND 16,
639 N.W.2d 439
Under N.D.R.Ev. 609 (a)(i), the burden is on the State to point to a danger of prejudice that substantially outweighs the probative value of prior convictions offered by a defendant in a criminal case to impeach a witness for the State.
Error is harmless under N.D.R.Ev. 609(a)(i) if the witness's credibility was sufficiently impeached by other evidence, or if the State's case was strong enough to support a conviction even apart from the witness's testimony.
State v. Weaver
, 2002 ND 4,
638 N.W.2d 30
In reviewing a trial court's denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution and the appellate court determines only whether there is evidence which could have allowed the jury to
draw an inference reasonably tending to prove guilt and fairly warranting a conviction.
When a defendant adopts an all-or-nothing trial strategy and fails to request instructions on lesser included offenses, the trial court's failure to instruct on lesser included offenses does not constitute obvious error.
State v. Marshall
, 2002 ND 3,
642 N.W.2d 532
Denials of N.D.R.Crim.P. 35(a) motion for correction of sentence and N.D.R.Crim.P. 36 motion for correction of a clerical mistake in sentence are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1).
State v. Jensen
, 2001 ND 159,
639 N.W.2d 706
Criminal conviction for failure to appear after release - bail jumping summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (4).
State v. Shafer-Imhoff
, 2001 ND 146,
632 N.W.2d 825
Application of N.D.C.C. 1-02-17 to eliminate the punishment of imprisonment for a criminal statute that was repealed after the criminal act was committed but before conviction, is not an invalid pardon.
A trial court is not required to instruct the jury in the exact language sought by a party if the court's instructions adequately and correctly inform the jury of the applicable law.
When a statute is clear and unambiguous on its face, we will not disregard the letter of the statute under the pretext of pursuing its spirit, because the legislative intent is presumed clear from the face of the statute.
After the jury has advised the court of an impasse, the court may employ more than one N.D.R.Ct. 6.9 option without being advised again of an impasse.
State v. Ellis
, 2000 ND 84,
625 N.W.2d 544
A defendant seeking a change of venue under N.D.R.Crim.P. 21 has the burden of establishing a reasonable likelihood of prejudice so pervasive that a fair and impartial jury cannot be selected in the county of original venue.
Except under N.D.C.C. 12.1-17-02(4), which involves firing a firearm or hurling a destructive device at another human being, aggravated assault is not a lesser included offense of attempted murder.
In sentencing a defendant, a trial court may consider a conviction that was pending appeal during the sentencing hearing.
State v. Lee
, 2000 ND 215,
622 N.W.2d 432
Judgment of conviction for the felony offense of bail jumping is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).
State v. Ellis
, 2000 ND 177,
617 N.W.2d 472
A defendant who seeks a new trial because voir dire has not been transcribed must first request transcription of the voir dire on the record. Failure to make a request for transcription on the record precludes a defendant from later asserting
error.
A defendant requesting a change of venue has the burden of showing a reasonable likelihood of prejudice so pervasive that a fair and impartial jury could not be found. Denial of change of venue will not be reversed unless the trial court abused
its discretion.
State v. Foley
, 2000 ND 91,
610 N.W.2d 49
Double jeopardy does not apply to a magistrate's determination at a preliminary hearing, because jeopardy does not attach until the accused is put to trial before a trier of fact.
The magistrate at a preliminary hearing may judge the credibility of witnesses.
State v. Jensen
, 2000 ND 28,
606 N.W.2d 507
Under N.D.R.Ev. 412, evidence that an alleged victim of sexual misconduct engaged in other sexual behavior or evidence of the victim's sexual predisposition is generally inadmissible.
A party must file a written motion under the rule requesting the court to admit specific instances of sexual behavior between the alleged victim and the accused, and failure to make a timely motion is reason alone for the court to deny admissibility
of the evidence.
State v. Dvorak
, 2000 ND 6,
604 N.W.2d 445
A specific on-the-record colloquy is not necessary to establish the validity of a defendant's waiver of the right to counsel if the record establishes the defendant voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived the right to counsel.
State v. Delaney
, 1999 ND 189,
601 N.W.2d 573
To grant a judgment of acquittal, a trial court must find the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction of the offenses charged.
State v. Miller
, 1999 ND 123,
603 N.W.2d 705
Conviction for terrorizing is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).
State v. Beckman
, 1999 ND 54,
591 N.W.2d 120
Under N.D.R.Crim.P. 32, a defendant must be given a chance to personally address the trial court before being sentenced.
To substantially comply with N.D.R.Crim.P. 11, the trial court must fully advise the defendant of the constitutional rights the defendant waives with a plea of guilty.
The purpose of the inquiry required by the second sentence of N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(c), is to ascertain whether the plea of guilty is the result of plea negotiations.
State v. Berlin
, 1999 ND App 1,
588 N.W.2d 866
If the record shows no evidence of confusion during guilty plea proceedings, a trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to withdraw a defendant's guilty plea.
A trial court's failure to advise a defendant he is not eligible for release from prison until 85 percent of his sentence has been served does not affect the voluntariness of a guilty plea.
Issues not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
State v. Ballensky
, 1998 ND 197,
586 N.W.2d 163
Conduct prior to imposition of sentence to probation does not violate the terms of probation.
State v. Spath
, 1998 ND 133,
581 N.W.2d 123
A trial court does not abuse its discretion when it refuses to
order a witness to provide a copy of her medical records, when
there has been no initial showing of materiality, and no request
for in camera review.
Failure to give an unrequested cautionary instruction not to
consider co-defendant's guilty plea is not obvious error when
other appropriate instructions were given, the allegedly
prejudicial comments were not emphasized, and there was
substantial additional evidence of defendant's guilt.
Appellate review of a criminal sentence is generally confined to
whether the trial court acted within the sentencing limits
prescribed by statute, or substantially relied upon an
impermissible factor.
State v. Black Cloud
, 1998 ND 84,
585 N.W.2d 581
Criminal Judgment of conviction for Unlawful Entry into a Vehicle
summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3), (7).
State v. Wika
, 1998 ND 33,
574 N.W.2d 831
An order denying State's motion for correction of illegal
sentence under Rule 35(a) NDRCrimP is appealable under NDCC
29-29-28-07(4), as it affects a substantial right.
The State may bring a motion under Rule 35(a), NDRCrimP, to
correct an illegal sentence.
A sentence that imposed less than the statutory mandatory minimum
is an illegal sentence.
State v. Esparza
, 1998 ND 13,
575 N.W.2d 203
Testimony of a non-accomplice and other evidence tending to
connect the
accused with the commission of the crime sufficiently
corroborates the
testimony of an accomplice.
Limited review on appeal of the sufficiency of the evidence to
convict of a
crime does not permit reweighing of the evidence or testimony.
In sentencing for conspiracy to commit armed robbery, a trial
court may
consider the use of a gun by an accomplice.
State v. Hart
, 1997 ND 188,
569 N.W.2d 451
A pro se criminal defendant who acquiesced in standby counsel's
participation at trial was not denied his Sixth Amendment right
to self-representation. In an attempted murder trial, the
trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding some
evidence about an alleged business relationship between the
defendant and the victim. The trial court committed harmless
error in excluding on the ground of hearsay the defendant's
testimony about an unavailable declarant's statement which was
offered to show the defendant's state of mind and not the truth
of the matter asserted.
State v. Leppert
, 1997 ND 184,
575 N.W.2d 224
Summarily affirmed Judgments of Conviction of the crime of
felonious restraint under Rule 35.1(a)(2), N.D.R.App.P.
State v. Goebel
, 1997 ND 13,
565 N.W.2d 505
Convictions of burglary and preventing arrest summarily affirmed
under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).
State v. Ensminger
,
562 N.W.2d 104 (N.D. 1996)
Denial of motion for new trial summarily affirmed under
Rule 35.1, N.D.R.App.P.
State v. Jones
,
557 N.W.2d 375 (N.D. 1996)
Defendant's terrorizing conviction affirmed by holding
(1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by
allowing the State to reopen its case after it had
rested, (2) sufficient evidence sustained the
conviction, and (3) the State's comments in closing
argument responding to defense attorney's closing
remarks were not obvious error.
State v. Eversvik
,
514 N.W.2d 371 (N.D. 1994)
State v. Bakke
,
498 N.W.2d 819 (N.D. 1993)
State v. Gefroh
,
495 N.W.2d 651 (N.D. 1993)
State v. Zeno
,
490 N.W.2d 707 (N.D. 1992)
State v. Hill
,
477 N.W.2d 825 (N.D. 1991)
State v. Miller
,
466 N.W.2d 128 (N.D. 1991)
State v. Ronne
,
458 N.W.2d 294 (N.D. 1990)
State v. Hoffarth
,
456 N.W.2d 111 (N.D. 1990)
State v. Arcand
,
403 N.W.2d 23 (N.D. 1987)
State v. Vermilya
,
395 N.W.2d 151 (N.D. 1986)
State v. Ferguson
,
391 N.W.2d 172 (N.D. 1986)
State v. Kurle
,
390 N.W.2d 48 (N.D. 1986)
State v. Dubs
,
390 N.W.2d 41 (N.D. 1986)
State v. Indvik
,
382 N.W.2d 623 (N.D. 1986)
State v. Patten
,
380 N.W.2d 346 (N.D. 1986)
State v. Muralt
,
376 N.W.2d 25 (N.D. 1985)
State v. Rasmussen
,
365 N.W.2d 481 (N.D. 1985)
State v. Miller
,
357 N.W.2d 225 (N.D. 1984)
State v. Mathison
,
356 N.W.2d 129 (N.D. 1984)
State v. Weisz
,
356 N.W.2d 466 (N.D. 1984)
State v. O'Boyle
,
356 N.W.2d 122 (N.D. 1984)
State v. Kania
,
341 N.W.2d 361 (N.D. 1983)
State v. Pendergrast
,
340 N.W.2d 454 (N.D. 1983)
State v. Kunkel
,
338 N.W.2d 635 (N.D. 1983)
State v. Brown
,
337 N.W.2d 138 (N.D. 1983)
State v. Marinucci
,
321 N.W.2d 462 (N.D. 1982)
State v. Klosterman
,
317 N.W.2d 796 (N.D. 1982)
State v. Tipler
,
316 N.W.2d 97 (N.D. 1982)
State v. Sheldon
,
312 N.W.2d 367 (N.D. 1981)
State v. Goetz
,
312 N.W.2d 1 (N.D. 1981)
State v. Klevgaard
,
306 N.W.2d 185 (N.D. 1981)
State v. Lewis
,
302 N.W.2d 396 (N.D. 1980)
State v. Lewis
,
300 N.W.2d 206 (N.D. 1980)
State v. Sheldon
,
301 N.W.2d 604 (N.D. 1980)
State v. Engel
,
289 N.W.2d 204 (N.D. 1980)
State v. McMorrow
,
286 N.W.2d 284 (N.D. 1979)
State v. Packineau
,
270 N.W.2d 336 (N.D. 1978)
State v. Hass
,
268 N.W.2d 456 (N.D. 1978)
State v. Kroeplin
,
266 N.W.2d 537 (N.D. 1978)
State v. Hass
,
177 N.W.2d 486 (N.D. 1978)
State v. Thorson
,
264 N.W.2d 441 (N.D. 1978)
State v. Motsko
,
261 N.W.2d 860 (N.D. 1977)
State v. Hanson
,
256 N.W.2d 364 (N.D. 1977)
State v. Hanson
,
252 N.W.2d 872 (N.D. 1977)
State v. Van Voorhees
,
243 N.W.2d 786 (N.D. 1976)
State v. Bragg
,
221 N.W.2d 793 (N.D. 1974)
State v. Gronlie
,
213 N.W.2d 874 (N.D. 1973)
State v. Emmil
,
172 N.W.2d 589 (N.D. 1969)
State v. Hendrick
,
164 N.W.2d 57 (N.D. 1969)
State v. Weisser
,
161 N.W.2d 360 (N.D. 1968)
State v. Henderson
,
156 N.W.2d 700 (N.D. 1968)
State v. Mathisen
,
149 N.W.2d 707 (N.D. 1967)
State v. Berger
,
148 N.W.2d 331 (N.D. 1966)
State v. Chaussee
,
138 N.W.2d 788 (N.D. 1965)
State v. Davis
,
138 N.W.2d 595 (N.D. 1965)
State v. Kreiger
,
138 N.W.2d 597 (N.D. 1965)
State v. Rohrich
,
135 N.W.2d 175 (N.D. 1965)