Gussiaas v. Neustel
2010 ND 216
| N.D. | 2010Background
- Walker was convicted by jury of robbery in North Dakota; Mosley, Thompson, and others were involved in the robbery at the Hooterville Bar in Ruthville.
- Walker admitted presence at the scene, planning with Mosley, taking the gaming operation’s duffel bag, dividing money, and attempting to conceal involvement; Mosley admitted to the assault on Ouellette.
- The district court instructed that robbery could be satisfied by acts of Walker or Mosley (accomplice actually present), but also applied a mandatory minimum sentencing statute that required all elements be satisfied by each defendant.
- The State argued for accomplice liability under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-03-01 and asked that Walker be treated as a principal actor for purposes of sentencing under § 12.1-32-02.1.
- Walker challenged the jury instruction as improperly requiring accomplice liability; the district court rejected the defense and sentenced Walker to six years with two suspended.
- The State cross-appealed the sentencing decision, arguing Walker was subject to the mandatory minimum; the State’s cross-appeal was later deemed unauthorized.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the jury instruction properly applied accomplice liability | Walker: requirement to personally satisfy all elements; instruction misapplies law | Walker: accomplice-present theory should not permit shared elements for robbery | Accomplice liability valid; Walker treated as principal actor for the crime |
| Whether the State’s cross-appeal was authorized | State: may appeal post-judgment or via Rule 35 corrections | Walker: cross-appeal improper; no statutory basis post-judgment | State cross-appeal dismissed for lack of statutory authorization |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Blunt, 785 N.W.2d 909 (2010 ND 144) (accomplice liability and official comments supportive of intent of the code)
- State v. Dubs, 390 N.W.2d 41 (N.D. 1986) (accomplice liability for robbery where principal acts by another)
- State v. Azure, 243 N.W.2d 363 (N.D. 1976) (accomplice liability when accomplice commits robbery, even if not victim’s direct attacker)
- State v. Nace, 371 N.W.2d 129 (N.D. 1985) (Rule 35(a) correction and appeal rights; illegal sentence challenges)
- State v. Wika, 574 N.W.2d 831 (N.D. 1998) (equivalent rights of State and defendant to move to correct illegal sentence under Rule 35)
- City of Riverside v. Smuda, 339 N.W.2d 768 (N.D. 1983) (defendant cannot directly appeal a sentence; Rule 35 avenues exist for illegality challenges)
- State v. Owens, 1997 ND 212 (N.D. 1997) (Rule 35 context for illegal sentence challenges)