Gadeco v. Industrial Commission
2013 ND 72
| N.D. | 2013Background
- Felipe Estrada was charged after a Fargo movie theater parking lot shooting.
- Charges included attempted murder for Garza, two counts of aggravated assault (one with a firearm against Roskom), and two counts of reckless endangerment.
- Eyewitnesses included Garza, Stodola, Roskom, and a movie theater employee who testified a bullet went through a window.
- Estrada’s defense claimed self-defense; he testified he acted to disarm Garza after being threatened.
- Jury received self-defense instructions including a modification to address both justification and excuse; a separate nonexistence of defense instruction was given.
- Judgment affirmed: Estrada convicted of aggravated assault with a firearm or destructive device, aggravated assault, and two reckless endangerment counts; sentences run consecutively.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Self-defense instruction—distinction between justification and excuse | Estrada argues the court failed to distinguish elements of justification vs excuse. | Estrada contends separate defenses were not properly instructed. | Not obvious error; instruction sufficient as a whole. |
| Nonexistence of defense instruction burden on State | State must prove absence of self-defense beyond reasonable doubt. | No separate element for excused self-defense. | No error; instructions read as a whole adequately informed the burden. |
| Limits on deadly force instruction | Instruction insufficiently defined when deadly force is justified. | Defense correctly explained the reasonable-belief standard. | Not obvious error; reasonable-belief instruction supplemented. |
| Omission of 'particular' in reckless endangerment instruction | Omission could render instruction overbroad. | Context and case law avoid prejudice; substantial law conveyed. | Not obvious error; instruction read as a whole adequately informed the law. |
| Prosecutorial misconduct from leading questions | Leading questions violated Rule 611(c) and prejudiced Estrada. | WITNESS was hostile; court properly allowed leading questions. | Not misconduct; justified given hostile witness and overall trial context. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Starke, 800 N.W.2d 705 (N.D. 2011) (jury instructions may be read as a whole and need not match exact language)
- State v. Olander, 575 N.W.2d 658 (N.D. 1998) (obvious error review; not here when instructions are considered as a whole)
- State v. Kensmoe, 636 N.W.2d 183 (N.D. 2001) (preservation requirements; obvious error standard applies)
- State v. Smith, 595 N.W.2d 565 (N.D. 1999) (instruction adequacy evaluated by overall instruction clarity)
- State v. Jaster, 690 N.W.2d 213 (N.D. 2004) (omission of 'particular' can be addressed in context; overall sufficiency remains)
- State v. Huether, 790 N.W.2d 901 (N.D. 2010) (sufficiency review standard for challenging evidence)