Finstad v. Ransom-Sargent Water Users, Inc.
2011 ND 215
| N.D. | 2011Background
- Wetzel was convicted in 2008 of multiple offenses and placed on five-year deferred sentence with supervised probation.
- Probation included standard conditions: avoid new offenses and refrain from excessive alcohol use.
- In May 2010 Wetzel stabbed a bar owner during a bar altercation; the State sought probation revocation the next day for aggravated assault and alcohol misuse.
- A jury later acquitted Wetzel of aggravated assault in the criminal case (February 2011).
- A probation revocation hearing occurred March 8–11, 2011; transcripts from the criminal trial were partially admitted.
- The district court found Wetzel violated probation by a new offense and excessive drinking, revoked probation, and resentenced him.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Collateral estoppel applies to probation revocation here? | Wetzel argues acquittal bars revocation. | Wetzel argues acquittal should preclude revocation. | Collateral estoppel does not bar revocation; different standards and purpose. |
| Was it error to rely on partial criminal trial transcripts? | Probation court should consider entire trial transcript as stated. | Only available portions were admitted; full transcript not required. | No error; probation revocation uses different rules; not required to have full transcript. |
| Was there sufficient evidence to prove probation violations by preponderance? | Evidence supported new aggravated assault and excessive alcohol use. | Challenge whether evidence meets the preponderance standard. | Yes; evidence supports both a new offense and excessive alcohol use. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. McAvoy, 2007 ND 178, 741 N.W.2d 198 (N.D. 2007) (two-step revocation standard; clearly erroneous findings; preponderance standard)
- In re O.F., 2009 ND 177, 773 N.W.2d 206 (N.D. 2009) (probation is not a stage of criminal prosecution; different burdens)
- Riverwood Commercial Park, L.L.C. v. Standard Oil Co., Inc., 2007 ND 36, 729 N.W.2d 101 (N.D. 2007) (collateral estoppel and res judicata defined)
- Ungar v. North Dakota State Univ., 2006 ND 185, 721 N.W.2d 16 (N.D. 2006) (preclusion concepts; different proceedings)
- State v. Stewart, 1999 ND 154, 598 N.W.2d 773 (N.D. 1999) (administrative vs criminal proceedings; different burdens)