City of Jamestown v. Kastet
- City of Jamestown, Plaintiff and Appellee
Holden Thomas Kastet, Defendant and Appellant
- Case Type
- CRIMINAL APPEAL : ASSAULT
- Appeal From
Case No. 2021-CR-00017
Southeast Judicial District, Stutsman County
Troy J. LeFevre
Parties' Statement of Issues
 A defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on a defense if there is evidence that creates a reasonable doubt about an element of the charged defense. Consent is a defense to the charge of simple assault. The district court erred by denying Defendant's requested consent as a defense instruction.
 A defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on a defense if there is evidence that creates a reasonable doubt about an element of the charged defense. Self-defense is a defense to the charge of simple assault. The district court erred by denying Defendant's requested self-defense instruction.
[¶1] Whether the District Court correctly determined that the defense of consent does not apply to the charge of simple assault when a defendant headbutts and repeatedly punches the victim in a public place because it would violate public policy.
[¶2] Whether the District Court correctly denied the requested jury instruction on selfdefense when the defendant is unable to show that his beliefs were reasonable and when the defendant was the initial aggressor.
Holden Kastet appeals from a criminal judgment after a jury found him guilty of simple assault.
According to trial testimony, Kastet was confronted by another individual in a Jamestown bar. After a fight outside the bar, Kastet was arrested and charged with simple assault. Before trial, Kastet requested jury instructions on the defenses of consent and self-defense. Kastet argued he acted in self-defense or the victim consented to the fight. The district court denied Kastet’s requested instructions. A jury found Kastet guilty.
On appeal, Kastet argues the district court erred by failing to provide his requested jury instructions on self-defense and consent as a defense.
(Note: Attachments may not be available for recently filed cases and/or confidential documents.)
|Seq. #||Filing Date||Description||Attachment|
|1||06/14/2021||NOTICE OF APPEAL : 06/14/2021|
|2||06/14/2021||ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT : 06/21/2021|
|3||06/15/2021||NOT. OF FILING NOT. OF APPEAL AND PROOF OF SERV.|
|4||06/15/2021||Notice filed on Luke T. Heck, Mark A. Friese & Abbagail C. Geroux|
|5||07/07/2021||ELEC. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED JULY 6, 2021 (ENTRY NOS. 1-60)(NOT SENT: 51)|
|6||07/07/2021||AMENDED ELEC. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED JULY 6, 2021 (ENTRY NOS. 1-60\2)(NOT SENT: 50 & 51)|
|7||07/12/2021||1ST ELEC. SUPP. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED JULY 8, 2021 (ENTRY NOS. 63)(REC'D VIA U.S. MAIL 50 & 51-CD)|
|8||07/26/2021||ELEC. SUPP. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED JULY 23, 2021 (ENTRY NOS. 64-82)|
|9||07/27/2021||ELECTRONIC TRANSCRIPT DATED JUNE 1, 2021|
|13||08/02/2021||Oral Argument Request by Appellant|
|14||08/04/2021||Rec'd 4 copies of ATB & 3 copies of ATA from CSD|
|15||09/01/2021||APPELLEE BRIEF (non-substantive correction to brief signed September 2, 2021)||View|
|16||09/01/2021||Oral Argument Request by Appellee|
|17||09/07/2021||Rec'd 4 copies of AEB from CSD|
|19||09/13/2021||Rec'd 4 copies of RYB from CSD|
|20||10/19/2021||NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SENT|
|21||11/29/2021||APPEARANCES: Mark A. Friese/Abbagail C. Geroux|
|22||11/29/2021||ARGUED: Mark A. Friese/Abbagail C. Geroux|
|23||11/29/2021||ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST|