Fonder v. Fonder, 2012 ND 228

Kirkpatrick appeals after a jury found him guilty of conspiracy to commit murder and conspiracy to commit burglary.
Guttuso was killed on October 26, 2009; Nakvinda, later convicted of related offenses, is tied to the case.
Kirkpatrick gave a statement to law enforcement in Oklahoma on October 31, 2009, which the State used at trial.
The State sought and obtained a draft jury instruction clarifying conspiracy to commit murder as intentional murder; Kirkpatrick objected.
The court denied an extreme emotional disturbance instruction; the jury was instructed on murder in a way that Kirkpatrick challenges as inconsistent with the charging document.
The Supreme Court affirms, holding the confession voluntary, evidence sufficient for burglary conspiracy, and no reversible error in jury instructions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Voluntariness of confession	Kirkpatrick contends the statement was involuntary.	Kirkpatrick asserts coercive interro gation techniques; not voluntary.	Confession affirmed voluntary; district court findings supported.
Sufficiency of burglary conspiracy evidence	Evidence showed agreement to burglarize and murder.	No explicit agreement; insufficient proof of burglary conspiracy.	Sufficient competent evidence supported conspiracy to commit burglary.
Notice and jury instruction on murder conspiracy	Information sufficed to charge conspiracy to murder.	Court rewrote to intentional murder; prejudicial error.	Information provided adequate notice; no reversible error from instruction change.
Extreme emotional disturbance applicability to conspiracy	EEI should apply to conspiracy because conspiracy mirrors target crime.	EEI is a mitigating factor for murder, not conspiracy; may not apply.	Cannot apply EEI to conspiracy under existing record; not necessary to decide beyond scope.
Right to a precise charge under Sixth Amendment	Information should specify intentional homicide as objective.	Exact specification not required; plain language suffice.	Information adequate to inform defense; no prejudice shown.

State v. Smith, 2005 ND 21 (ND 2005) (defers to district court on voluntariness findings; evidentiary review standard)
City of Fargo v. Thompson, 520 N.W.2d 578 (ND 1994) (standard for reviewing voluntariness and weight of evidence)
State v. Pickar, 453 N.W.2d 783 (ND 1990) (totality of circumstances in voluntariness analysis)
State v. Crabtree, 2008 ND 174 (ND 2008) (confession voluntariness factual questions reviewed for sufficiency)
State v. Delaney, 1999 ND 189 (ND 1999) (sufficiency review—conflicting evidence not resolved on appeal)
State v. Gagnon, 1999 ND 13 (ND 1999) (standard for evaluating trial evidence credibility not disturbed on appeal)
State v. Bethke, 2009 ND 47 (ND 2009) ( Sixth Amend. notice where information lacks explicit details but provides defense with knowledge)
Mata v. City of WahpetonDesjarlais, 517 N.W.2d 628 (ND 1994) (plain-language pleading sufficiency; hyper-technical pleading not required)