 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Steen8/18/2000
tructed the jury to answer the interrogatory only if the jury found Steen guilty of negligent homicide. A jury is presumed to follow instructions provided by the court. State v. Osier, 1999 ND 28, 24, 590 N.W.2d 205. Because the interrogatory chronologically followed the general verdict, the jury necessarily found Steen guilty of negligent homicide before addressing the interrogatory. Because the jury was first required to make a finding of guilt before the interrogatory could be answered, we conclude the interrogatory could not have led to a finding of guilt. See State v. Schmitz, 559 N.W.2d 701, 706 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997); Robinson, 476 N.W.2d at 903.
[ ] We reject Steen's argument that the erroneous verdict form tainted the verdict itself because the prosecutor questioned witnesses about his consumption of alcohol the evening before the accident. The inadvertent admission of the incorrect verdict form did not open the door for the jury's consideration of evidence of Steen's alcohol consumption because evidence of intoxication can be relevant in a negligent homicide case regardless of the mandatory minimum sentence provisions of N.D.C.C. § 39-08-01.2(1)(a) and (2). This Court has held evidence of intoxication is relevant in a negligent homicide case if it is indicative of a defendant's condition at a relevant time. See State v. Winkler, 552 N.W.2d 347, 356-57 (N.D. 1996); State v. Smaage, 547 N.W.2d 916, 921-22 (N.D. 1996); State v. Tranby, 437 N.W.2d 817, 822-24 (N.D. 1989); State v. Erickson, 241 N.W.2d 854, 861-62 (N.D. 1976). Under the circumstances, evidence of driving under the influence is relevant to both the crime charged and the imposition of a mandatory minimum sentence. The submission of the incorrect verdict form does not constitute reversible error.III
[ ] Steen argues the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for leaving the scene of an accident involving death or personal injury . Although Steen concedes he did not move for judgment of acquittal under N.D.R.Crim.P. 29, and therefore failed to preserve the issue of sufficiency of the evidence for review, see, e.g., City of Bismarck v. Towne, 1999 ND 49, 8, 590 N.W.2d 893, he argues the insufficiency of the evidence is obvious error affecting substantial rights under N.D.R.Civ.P. 52(b).
[ ] To establish obvious error, a defendant must show an error that is plain and affects substantial rights. State v. Burke, 2000 ND 25, 16, 606 N.W.2d 108. This Court will reverse a conviction 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. City of Jamestown v. Neumiller, 2000 ND 11, 5, 604 N.W.2d 441.
[ ] Under N.D.C.C. § 39-08-04(1), the driver of any vehicle involved in an accident involving death or personal injury must "immediately stop or return with the vehicle as close as possible to the scene of the accident and in every event shall remain at the scene of the accident until that driver has fulfilled the requirements of section 39-08-06." Those requirements under N.D.C.C. § 39-08-06 include that the driver "shall give the driver's name and address . . . as well as the registration number, of the vehicle." Steen contends the prosecution failed to prove that he was the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident, and assuming he was the driver, the prosecution failed to prove that he did not provide the information required by N.D.C.C. § 39-08-06.
[ ] There is substantial circumstantial evidence Steen drove the vehicle involved in the accident. The prosecutor presented evidence that skid marks
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 North Dakota DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|