State v. Tompkins
Docket Info
- Title
- State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee
v.
Brandon Todd Tompkins, Defendant and Appellant - Case Type
- CRIMINAL APPEAL : DUI/DUS
- Appeal From
-
Case No. 2022-CR-00145
Southeast Judicial District, Stutsman County
Troy J. LeFevre
Parties' Statement of Issues
-
Appellant
Verdicts in a criminal case must be unanimous. Unanimity requires all jurors to agree that the defendant committed the same criminal act. Here, the jury instructions provided by the district court allowed the jury to convict Appellant if he committed either the act of: (1) being under the influence of an intoxicating liquor; or (2) refusing a chemical test requested by law enforcement. Did allowing the jury to convict Appellant without unanimously agreeing Appellant committed a singular criminal act violate Appellant’s right to a unanimous criminal verdict?
-
Appellee 1
1. Whether Tompkins’ failure to submit specific proposed instructions and proposed verdict forms beyond his routine requests for pattern instructions failed to thoroughly preserve his objections for appeal and left his objections to be reviewed for plain error.
2. Whether N.D.C.C. subsection 39-08-01(1)(e) refusal to submit to a chemical test is a separate offense or an alternate means of committing DUI or APC.
3. Whether the jury instructions as a whole correctly and adequately informed the jury of the applicable law, when the trial court did not give separate elements instructions or separate verdict forms for either refusal DUI or refusal APC.
Summary
Brandon Tompkins appeals his convictions for driving under the influence and actual physical control. On appeal, Tompkins argues the district court provided the jury with incorrect jury instructions that allowed Tompkins to be found guilty without the jury unanimously agreeing Tompkins committed a singular criminal act.
(Note: Attachments may not be available for recently filed cases and/or confidential documents.)
Seq. # | Filing Date | Description | Attachment |
---|---|---|---|
1 | 09/14/2022 | NOTICE OF APPEAL : 09/14/2022 | View |
2 | 09/14/2022 | ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT : 09/16/2022 | View |
3 | 09/15/2022 | NOT. OF FILING NOT. OF APPEAL AND PROOF OF SERV. | View |
4 | 09/15/2022 | Notice Served on Luke T. Heck & Fredrick R. Fremgen | |
5 | 09/15/2022 | ANNOUNCED DISQUALIFICATION : VandeWalle, Gerald W. | |
6 | 10/10/2022 | ELEC. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED OCTOBER 7, 2022 (ENTRY NOS.1-53, 55-83)(NOT ELEC. #54 EXHIBIT) | View |
7 | 10/11/2022 | AMENDED ELEC. REC. ON APPEAL DATED OCTOBER 10, 2022 (ENTRY NOS.1-53, 55-85; NOT SENT: 54) | View |
8 | 10/11/2022 | MOTION FOR STAY BY APPELLANT | View |
9 | 10/13/2022 | ACTION BY CHIEF JUSTICE - Denied | |
10 | 11/14/2022 | All Transcripts Filed in Record | |
11 | 11/14/2022 | 1ST ELEC. SUPP. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED NOVEMBER 14, 2022 (ENTRY NOS. 86-89) | View |
12 | 12/12/2022 | APPELLANT BRIEF | View |
13 | 12/12/2022 | Oral Argument Request by Appellant | |
14 | 12/15/2022 | Rec'd 3 copies of ATB from CSD | |
15 | 01/08/2023 | APPELLEE BRIEF | View |
16 | 01/08/2023 | Oral Argument Request by Appellee | |
17 | 01/09/2023 | 2ND ELEC. SUPP. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED JANUARY 6, 2023 (ENTRY NOS. 90-91) | View |
18 | 01/09/2023 | Rec'd 3 copies of AEB from CSD | |
19 | 01/10/2023 | Non-compliant RYB rec'd; given until 1/16/22 | |
20 | 01/11/2023 | Rec'd compliant RYB | |
21 | 01/11/2023 | REPLY BRIEF | View |
22 | 01/13/2023 | Rec'd 3 copies of RYB from CSD | |
23 | 01/24/2023 | NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SENT | |
24 | 01/26/2023 | 3RD ELEC. SUPP. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED JANUARY 24, 2023 (ENTRY NOS. 92-93) | |
25 | 02/22/2023 | AMENDED NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SENT (ZOOM) | |
26 | 02/24/2023 | APPEARANCES: Drew J. Hushka & Fredrick R. Fremgen | |
27 | 02/24/2023 | ARGUED: Drew J. Hushka & Fredrick R. Fremgen | |
28 | 02/24/2023 | ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST |