Ennen v. State
2013 ND 66
| N.D. | 2013Background
- Romero was charged in Pembina County after the 2010 Grand Forks trip with murder and marijuana possession/manufacture; the State later amended to add cocaine possession with intent to deliver and tampering with physical evidence.
- Trial testimony described Romero and others traveling to Grand Forks to obtain marijuana; C.E. and a minor were involved, with Lafferty allegedly deceiving them and threatening texts from Romero.
- Romero returned to Pembina; a confrontation with Kalis occurred, Romero fired his AR-15 thirteen times, killing Kalis, and then called 911.
- Law enforcement found marijuana plants at Romero’s house; in Grand Forks, cocaine was associated with Romero via C.E. and later recovered by police.
- A district court refused to allow the jury to view the crime scene, but admitted photographs and a scale drawing; the jury convicted on three counts after dismissing tampering with physical evidence.
- Romero appealed challenging the jury view denial, self-defense instructions, Rule 29 acquittal, and transcript issues; the Court affirmed the judgments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Juror view of the crime scene | Romero contends the view would aid understanding | State contends viewing would add no useful purpose | No abuse of discretion; viewing denied. |
| Self-defense instruction wording | Romero argues for 'serious bodily injury' or a defined term | State argues current instruction suffices | Instructions, taken as a whole, were not misleading; no error. |
| Judgment of acquittal on cocaine with intent to deliver | Romero challenges sufficiency linking cocaine to him | State shows sufficient evidence of connection | Sufficient evidence; Rule 29 denial affirmed. |
| Transcript/voir dire indiscernibles on appeal | Romero seeks verbatim transcript; argues prejudice | No preserved error; indiscernibles harmless | No reversible error; record adequate. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Schlickenmayer, 334 N.W.2d 196 (N.D. 1983) (juror view discretion standard and purpose)
- State v. Kleppe, 2011 ND 141 (N.D. 2011) (proper application of law in view of evidence)
- State v. Leidholm, 334 N.W.2d 811 (N.D. 1983) (self-defense terms: serious/great bodily injury interchangeable)
- State v. Erickstad, 2000 ND 202 (N.D. 2000) (instructions must be accurate as a whole)
- State v. Entzi, 2000 ND 148 (N.D. 2000) (transcript importance; not always essential for meaningful appeal)
- State v. Bruce, 2012 ND 140 (N.D. 2012) (sufficiency standard on appeal; defer to verdict when evidence supports)