Assault

State v. Jacobson , 2008 ND 73, 747 N.W.2d 481
An appearance of partiality requiring a judge's disqualification does not automatically result from a judge's casual or social acquaintance with a witness.
A disqualified judge whose withdrawal from a case is not mandatory has the option of either withdrawing or disclosing to the parties on the record the basis for his disqualification.
A party seeking to disqualify a judge from a proceeding must file a timely motion.
A party who knows the facts that would form the basis of disqualification prior to entry of a judgment against him waives his right to disqualification of a judge by failing to request disqualification until after the judge enters a judgment adverse to that party.
State v. Lium , 2008 ND 33, 744 N.W.2d 774
A plea agreement for a specific sentence or sentencing range which is binding on a district court may be accepted, rejected, or deferred until the court has reviewed a presentence report.
After a guilty plea has been accepted but before sentencing, a defendant may withdraw the plea if necessary to correct a manifest injustice, or if allowed in the court's discretion for any fair and just reason unless the prosecution has been prejudiced by reliance on the plea.
A district court misapplies the law if a motion to withdraw a guilty plea is made before sentencing and the court does not decide whether there was a fair and just reason for withdrawal of the plea.
State v. Brandt , 2008 ND 18, 747 N.W.2d 136
Convictions for aggravated assault, knowing or reckless interference with a telephone during an emergency call and felonious restraint are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a) (3), (4) and (7).
State v. Schweitzer , 2007 ND 122, 735 N.W.2d 873
For a statement to be admissible under the "excited utterance" exception to the hearsay rule, the proponent must show: (1) a startling event or condition; and (2) the statement is the product of the declarant's stress or excitement resulting from the startling event or condition.
Hearsay included within hearsay is not excluded as hearsay if each part of the combined statements falls within a hearsay exception.
A conviction will be reversed on the ground of insufficient evidence only if, after viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the verdict, no rational factfinder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
A defendant claiming ineffective assistance of counsel has a heavy burden of proving: (1) counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) the defendant was prejudiced by the counsel's deficient performance.
State v. Rutherford , 2006 ND 129, 719 N.W.2d 759
A criminal judgment entered after a jury convicted the defendant of burglary and assault is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).
State v. Raulston , 2005 ND 212, 707 N.W.2d 464
A sentence is not illegal if, during the judge's oral pronouncement of the sentence, he states a hypothetical that could not come to fruition.
A defendant need not be informed of an 85 percent service requirement for a guilty plea to be knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered, as such a requirement is a parole condition rather than a mandatory minimum sentence.
An ineffective assistance of counsel claim fails when an attorney's performance--deficient or not--does not prejudice a defendant, due to the overwhelming evidence favoring the defendant's guilt.
The State may respond to an application for post-conviction relief within the time allowed by the court.
The district court's failure to make explicit findings and conclusions in its denial of post-conviction relief is harmless error based on the ample evidence within the record.
State v. Croaker , 2005 ND 198, 709 N.W.2d 21
Conviction of simple assault is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).
State v. Mohamed , 2005 ND 184, 709 N.W.2d 21
A criminal judgment following a conviction for aggravated assault is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).
State v. Leftbear , 2005 ND 163, 704 N.W.2d 573
A criminal judgment following a conviction for aggravated assault is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).
State v. Olsen , 2005 ND 89, 704 N.W.2d 286
A criminal judgment following a jury conviction for burglary and a denial of post-conviction relief are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (3).
State v. Bleibaum , 2005 ND 77, 704 N.W.2d 286
A criminal judgment following a jury conviction for aggravated assault, a class C felony, is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (4).
State v. Rupp , 2005 ND 3, 694 N.W.2d 22
Conviction of attempted aggravated assault is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).
State v. Murchison , 2004 ND 193, 687 N.W.2d 725
The preliminary hearing is a critical stage of the proceedings at which the defendant has a constitutional right to representation by counsel.
A defendant has the burden of establishing he is indigent and qualifies for appointment of counsel.
In deciding whether to grant a motion for recusal, the trial judge must determine whether a reasonable person could, on the basis of all the facts, reasonably question the judge's impartiality. Recusal is not required in response to spurious or vague charges of partiality.
A trial judge is allowed the widest range of discretion in fixing a criminal sentence and appellate review is generally confined to whether the court acted within the statutory sentencing limits or substantially relied upon an impermissible factor in determining the severity of the sentence.
State v. Mathre , 2004 ND 149, 683 N.W.2d 918
The appellant must provide a transcript on appeal, and the appellant suffers any consequences resulting from the lack of a transcript to review.
An arrest is not unlawful merely because there is no subsequent conviction of the crime for which an individual is arrested.
A person is not justified in using force for the purpose of resisting arrest, execution of process, or other performance of duty by a public servant under color of law, but excessive force may be resisted.
State v. Reimche , 2004 ND 124, 688 N.W.2d 402
Convictions of aggravated assault are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).
State v. Clark , 2004 ND 85, 678 N.W.2d 765
An appellate court exercises its authority to notice obvious error cautiously and only in exceptional circumstances in which the defendant has suffered a serious injustice.
A prosecutor's closing arguments may properly draw reasonable conclusions and argue permissible inferences from the evidence, but a prosecutor may not create evidence by argument or by incorporating personal beliefs into the argument.
An argument that asks jurors to place themselves in the shoes of a party is improper and should be avoided.
State v. Lemons , 2004 ND 44, 675 N.W.2d 148
A trial court's refusal to allow a defense witness to testify by telephone is not an abuse of discretion because the Rules of Criminal Procedure provide that all testimony is to be taken orally in open court.
Denial of a motion for continuance to procure an absent witness is not obvious error when a defendant fails to demonstrate the denial affected a substantial right.
Without a showing of prejudice, a trial court's denial of a motion for new trial is not an abuse of discretion.
State v. Morales , 2004 ND 10, 673 N.W.2d 250
A court does not err by not giving a jury instruction on license or privilege on a criminal trespass charge when there is no evidence to support it.
A court does not err when it does not include a jury instruction on a lesser-included offense when the evidence does not permit the jury to rationally find the defendant not guilty of the greater offense and guilty of the lesser offense.
A jury verdict of assault on a police officer will be affirmed when the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, no rational trier of fact could have found that the essential elements of the crime were established beyond a reasonable doubt.
State v. Stoppleworth , 2003 ND 137, 667 N.W.2d 586
When a victim is unable or unwilling to identify the defendant at trial, the victim's prior out-of-court statements identifying the defendant as his assailant are admissible if the victim testifies and is available for cross-examination at trial.
State v. Weisz , 2002 ND 207, 654 N.W.2d 416
When a party fails to adequately preserve an issue for appellate review, appellate inquiry is limited to noticing obvious error.
A defendant's rights against being placed in double jeopardy are not violated when he pleads guilty to simple assault in one county and is charged with aggravated assault in another county because the crimes were separate offenses.
State v. Fontaine , 2002 ND 172, 655 N.W.2d 84
Conviction for simple assault of a correctional officer is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).
State v. Johnson , 2001 ND 184, 636 N.W.2d 391
Lack of criminal responsibility is not an affirmative defense, and the nonexistence of the defense is an element of the offense which the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
Appellate courts may notice obvious error affecting a substantial right of a party even if the error was not raised by the parties on appeal.
State v. Ballard , 2001 ND 161, 639 N.W.2d 706
Judgment of conviction for two counts of aggravated assault is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).
State v. Kelly , 2001 ND 135, 631 N.W.2d 167
Inmate disciplinary proceedings and the resulting consequences are civil in nature.
Erroneously admitted evidence that is cumulative to other properly admitted evidence is not prejudicial, does not affect substantial rights of the parties, and is harmless error.
State v. Reamann , 2000 ND 81, 609 N.W.2d 436
Without a record of an offer of proof, a party cannot show an abuse of discretion.
State v. Mathre , 1999 ND 224, 603 N.W.2d 173
A trial court does not obviously err by instructing as to self-defense but not as to lesser included offenses when a defendant tried for aggravated assault requests a self-defense instruction but does not request instructions as to lesser included offenses.
State v. Goulet , 1999 ND 80, 593 N.W.2d 345
Judges are not expected to divine a party's true intentions in mislabeled and misleading documents.
Parties have the primary duty to bring to the court's attention the proper rules of law applicable to a case.
N.D.R.Crim.P. 16(f)(1) does not require the prosecution to furnish to the defendant the names of its rebuttal witnesses.
The right of surrebuttal is discretionary with the trial court.
State v. Martineau , 1999 ND 41, 592 N.W.2d 923
District court's order denying a motion to correct a sentence, imposed following a probation violation, is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).
State v. Richards , 1999 ND 20, 592 N.W.2d 923
Aggravated assault conviction summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).
State v. Petersen , 1998 ND 195, 595 N.W.2d 602
Conviction of aggravated assault summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).
State v. Antoine , 1997 ND 100, 564 N.W.2d 637
A defendant may not indicate by his actions at trial his apparent acquiescence in his attorney's decision that he not testify, and then later argue he was silenced against his will. The defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel argument should be raised at a proceeding for post-conviction relief. The conviction of simple assault and preventing arrest is affirmed.
State v. Ertelt , 1997 ND 15, 558 N.W.2d 860
A criminal defendant cannot collaterally attack his underlying conviction by way of a motion to correct an illegal sentence.
State v. Torres , 1997 ND 5, 565 N.W.2d 505
Affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1.
State v. LeBlanc , 562 N.W.2d 104 (N.D. 1996)
Reckless endangerment conviction summarily affirmed under Rule 35.1(a)(3), N.D.R.App.P.
State v. Larson , 554 N.W.2d 655 (N.D. 1996)
A defendant is entitled to an instruction on a lesser-included offense only if there is evidence to create a reasonable doubt about the greater offense and to support a conviction of the lesser offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
A defendant charged with assault of a peace officer was not entitled to an instruction on the lessor-included offense of simple assault where there was no evidence to create a reasonable doubt that the officers were acting in an official capacity.
State v. Robles , 535 N.W.2d 729 (N.D. 1995)
State v. Murchison , 537 N.W.2d 365 (N.D. 1995)
State v. Odegaard , 520 N.W.2d 60 (N.D. 1994)
State v. Robertson , 502 N.W.2d 249 (N.D. 1993)
State v. McIntyre , 488 N.W.2d 612 (N.D. 1992)
State v. Foster , 484 N.W.2d 113 (N.D. 1992)
State v. Anderson , 480 N.W.2d 727 (N.D. 1992)
State v. Moran , 474 N.W.2d 77 (N.D. 1991)
State v. Warmsbecker , 466 N.W.2d 105 (N.D. 1991)
City of Bismarck v. Nassif , 449 N.W.2d 789 (N.D. 1989)
State v. Bowers , 426 N.W.2d 293 (N.D. 1988)
State v. Meier , 422 N.W.2d 381 (N.D. 1988)
State v. Windhorst , 422 N.W.2d 98 (N.D. 1988)
State v. Denney , 417 N.W.2d 181 (N.D. 1987)
State v. Olson , 417 N.W.2d 186 (N.D. 1987)
State v. Thiel , 411 N.W.2d 66 (N.D. 1987)
State v. Kunkel , 406 N.W.2d 681 (N.D. 1987)
State v. Hartsoch , 329 N.W.2d 367 (N.D. 1983)
State v. Schimetz , 328 N.W.2d 808 (N.D. 1982)
State v. Poitra , 266 N.W.2d 544 (N.D. 1978)
State v. Vogan , 243 N.W.2d 382 (N.D. 1976)
State v. Berger , 235 N.W.2d 254 (N.D. 1975)
State v. Berger , 234 N.W.2d 6 (N.D. 1975)
State v. Swanson , 225 N.W.2d 283 (N.D. 1974)
State v. Jacob , 222 N.W.2d 586 (N.D. 1974)
State v. Brodell , 220 N.W.2d 848 (N.D. 1974)
State v. Lende , 190 N.W.2d 52 (N.D. 1971)

Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 08/08/2008