Coppage v. State, 2013 ND 10

Vetter owned rental property in West Fargo; Hemphill, a former tenant, confronted him over repeated vehicle passes.
On Feb. 18, 2011, Vetter drove a 2005 Hummer past the property; Hemphill confronted him in the street.
Hemphill stood in the road and did not move; Vetter advanced, Hemphill fell under the vehicle as it rolled over him.
Hemphill suffered broken ribs, facial injuries, and other injuries; police noted Hemphill was pushed back about 86 feet.
Vetter was convicted of aggravated assault with a dangerous weapon under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-17-02(1) with a special finding for use of a dangerous weapon; district court denied post-trial motions and imposed sentence including the mandatory minimum.
The issue on appeal is whether a motor vehicle can be a dangerous weapon under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-01-04(6); the court affirms the conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a vehicle may be a dangerous weapon as a matter of law	State argues catch-all allows vehicle use as a dangerous weapon	Vetter argues vehicle is not per se a dangerous weapon	Vehicle may be a dangerous weapon depending on use
Whether there is sufficient evidence the vehicle was used as a dangerous weapon	Evidence shows Vetter continued forward, injuring Hemphill	Evidence insufficient to prove weapon use	There is substantial evidence supporting use of a dangerous weapon

State v. Bauer, 783 N.W.2d 21 (2010 ND) (sufficiency review; whether possession indicated readiness to inflict serious injury)
State v. Schweitzer, 510 N.W.2d 612 (ND 1994) (dangerous weapon determination as a factual question, with required testimony in some contexts)
State v. Clinkscales, 536 N.W.2d 661 (ND 1995) (readiness to inflict serious injury; weapons in aggravated robbery)
State v. O’Toole, 773 N.W.2d 201 (ND 2009) (statutory interpretation; use of plain language and extrinsic aids when ambiguous)
People v. Goolsby, 279 N.W.2d 867 (Mich. 1938) (vehicle may be a dangerous weapon depending on use in assault)