Interest of D.J.
2011 ND 142
| N.D. | 2011Background
- Kleppe and Dethloff were charged in separate cases with unlawfully taking, possessing, or hunting big game (deer) under N.D.C.C. §§ 20.1-05-01, 20.1-05-02. (I–II)
- The State moved in limine to exclude evidence on depredation and defense of property defenses in both cases; Kleppe’s court allowed no defenses and rejected his excuse/mistake of law instructions. (II)
- Dethloff’s court initially found depredation/defense of property inapplicable but later allowed trial evidence for reasons for shooting; judge later ruled strict liability precludes defenses and ordered restitution of $8,500. (II–III, IV)
- Kleppe pleaded guilty conditionally to unlawfully hunting and shooting big game; Dethloff pleaded guilty conditionally to unlawfully taking and possessing deer, preserving appellate rights. (I)
- The appellate court consolidated the appeals and reviewed the trial court’s evidentiary rulings, jury instruction decisions, and restitution order. (VI–IV)
- The court affirmed the convictions, reversed the restitution order, and remanded for a new restitution hearing. (V)
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the in limine rulings excluding depredation evidence were an abuse of discretion | Kleppe and Dethloff | Kleppe and Dethloff | No abuse; depredation defense inapplicable to deer |
| Whether the defense of defense of property or constitutional claim warrants admission of evidence | State | Kleppe and Dethloff | Waived/conduct not supported; no reverse ruling on constitutional claim |
| Whether the trial court erred in refusing jury instructions on excuse and mistake of law | State | Kleppe and Dethloff | No error; strict liability precludes these defenses in this context, with limited exception not met |
| Whether the restitution amount of $8,500 was properly proven and set | State | Dethloff | Abused; lack of evidence to support base value; remand for new restitution hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Buchholz, 2006 ND 227 (ND 2006) (trial court broad discretion in evidentiary rulings; relevance standard)
- State v. Holte, 2001 ND 133 (ND 2001) (strict liability offenses may permit certain affirmative defenses; public policy considerations)
- State v. Rasmussen, 524 N.W.2d 843 (ND 1994) (affirmative defense may apply in life-threatening circumstances)
- State v. Ness, 2009 ND 182 (ND 2009) (excuse defense requires beliefs to be necessary and proper under chapter 12.1-05)
- State v. Zottnick, 2011 ND 84 (ND 2011) (jury instruction standard; reasonable doubt and broad view of evidence)