 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
City of Bismarck v. Fischer4/13/1998
AFFIRMED.
City of Bismarck v. Fischer Criminal No. 970368
[ ] Carl W. Fischer appeals from the trial court's Amended Judgment of Conviction entered after a six-person jury found him guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol. Prior to submission of the case to the jury, Fischer made a motion for judgment of acquittal under Rule 29, N.D.R.Crim.P. The trial court denied Fischer's motion and submitted the case to the jury. The only issue raised on appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Fischer's motion for judgment of acquittal.
[ ] In deciding a motion for judgment of acquittal, "the trial court, upon reviewing the evidence most favorable to the prosecution, must deny the motion if there is substantial evidence upon which a reasonable mind could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Steinbach, 1998 ND 18, (citing State v. Kingsley, 383 N.W.2d 828, 829 (N.D. 1986)). On appeal, in order to successfully challenge the sufficiency of the evidence, the defendant must show the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, permits no reasonable inference of guilt. Id. (citing State v. Fasching, 461 N.W.2d 102, 103 (N.D. 1990)). The record in this case does not establish an abuse of the trial court's discretion in denying Fischer's motion. We, therefore, affirm the trial court's decision under Rule 35.1(a)(4), N.D.R.App.P.
[ ] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.
Mary Muehlen Maring
Herbert L. Meschke
William A. Neumann
David W. Nelson, D.J.
[ ] David Nelson, D.J., sitting in place of Sandstrom, J., disqualified.
|