Holkesvig v. Welte, 2012 ND 142

Clark bought tools from Acme using the name Clark Construction; signed invoices; account showed Oriska address; paid with check bearing Gilby address.
Second purchase (generator) charged to Clark Construction; Clark did not pay; generator picked up later.
Acme billed Clark Construction in Oriska; a representative denied any authorization by Clark Construction; Acme notified police.
Clark was previously convicted by guilty plea and later retried after a federal habeas reversal; retrial resulted in an eight-year sentence after habitual-offender enhancement.
Jury instruction on honest-belief defense was denied; verdict of theft of property followed; appeal challenges multiple trial and sentencing issues.
State v. Clark, 2010 ND 106 affirmed prior conviction; retrial led to eight-year sentence; this appeal challenges that outcome and evidentiary rulings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an honest-belief defense instruction was warranted	Clark, vite States, had evidence to support defense	Clark contends evidence supports honest-belief defense	No error; insufficient evidence supported instruction
Sufficiency of the evidence to sustain theft verdict	State asserts evidence supported knowledge and intent	Clark asserts no evidence of intent to deprive	Evidence adequate; conviction upheld
Timeliness and propriety of sentence (habituation)	State seeks lawful enhancement; proper procedure followed	Sentence excessive; vindictiveness argued	Sentence within statutory limits; no vindictiveness shown
Brady material and admission of invoices	State complied with disclosure; copies admitted	Crossed-out marks on copies could prejudice	No Brady violation; admission not error
Obvious error preservation and other post-trial claims	Appellate review of evidence and errors	Several new issues raised; not preserved	No obvious error; no reversible prejudice

State v. Starke, 2011 ND 147 (North Dakota Supreme Court 2011) (jury instructions reviewed as whole; relevance of defense)
State v. Lehman, 2010 ND 134 (North Dakota Supreme Court 2010) (instructional adequacy assessed on record)
Ness, 2009 ND 182 (North Dakota Supreme Court 2009) (defense instruction requires evidence to be adequately raised)
State v. Fraser, 2000 ND 53 (North Dakota Supreme Court 2000) (defense knowledge may be inferred from circumstantial evidence)
State v. Jacob, 2006 ND 246 (North Dakota Supreme Court 2006) (preservation of jury instruction objections; obvious-error standard)
Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (U.S. Supreme Court 1969) (presumption of vindictiveness; later narrowed by Alabama v. Smith)
Alabama v. Smith, 490 U.S. 794 (U.S. Supreme Court 1989) (no presumption of vindictiveness after retrial for harsher sentence)
State v. Muhle, 2007 ND 132 (North Dakota Supreme Court 2007) (Brady framework applicable to suppression of favorable evidence)
State v. Cain, 2011 ND 213 (North Dakota Supreme Court 2011) (habits-of-offender sentence considerations; abuse of discretion standard)
State v. Vondal, 2011 ND 186 (North Dakota Supreme Court 2011) (obvious-error review under Rule 52(b))
State v. Blurton, 2009 ND 144 (North Dakota Supreme Court 2009) (obvious-error exceptional circumstances)