Sorenson v. Slater, 2011 ND 216

Background

Cain and Falcon allegedly beat the victim with a tire iron and chain during a confrontation that occurred after leaving the victim’s apartment in Cain’s car on June 15–16, 2010; the victim suffered severe head injuries.
Initial testimony showed Cain retrieved weapons from the car and, with Falcon, attacked the victim; the assault left the victim unconscious.
Cain was charged with conspiracy to commit aggravated assault; he moved for judgment of acquittal, and the district court denied; the jury convicted Cain of conspiracy to commit aggravated assault.
Prior to trial, Cain demanded a speedy trial and moved to dismiss under the Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Act (UMDDA); the district court denied based on lack of applicability.
At sentencing, the state sought habitual offender status and introduced four certified copies of prior judgments; Cain challenged the use of certified copies and the conduct of the hearing.
The district court combined the dangerous offender/sentencing hearing with the habitual offender determination, found two prior felonies for habitual offender, and sentenced Cain accordingly.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the conspiracy verdict supported by sufficient evidence of an agreement?	Cain lacks an explicit agreement; no conspiracy proven.	Evidence showed implied agreement via collaboration and conduct.	Yes; evidence supported an implied agreement.
May the court rely on certified copies to prove habitual offender status at sentencing?	Certified copies are admissible and sufficient under statute and evidence rules.	Only authenticated copies may be used to prove prior felonies.	Certified copies satisfy authentication; sufficient to establish habitual offender status.
Did the UMDDA speedy-trial provisions apply to Cain’s case?	UMDDA governs detained prisoners; detainer not required here, so not applicable.	Cain’s speedy-trial rights under UMDDA were violated because the statutory process should have applied.	UMDDA did not apply; no detainer existed.
Were photographs of the victim’s injuries properly admitted under Rule 403 balancing?	Photos were relevant to prove weapons use and causation of injuries.	Photographs were unfairly prejudicial and should have been excluded.	No plain error; photographs properly admitted.
Did the district court err by using certified, not authenticated, copies to support habitual offender status under §12.1-32-09?	Certified copies are proper under evidentiary authentication rules.	Authentication requires duly authenticated copies; certified is insufficient without clerk testimony.	Certified copies are self-authenticating under relevant rules; validity upheld.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Kinsella, 2011 ND 88 (N.D. 2011) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence in conspiracy cases)
State v. Wanner, 2010 ND 121 (N.D. 2010) (sufficiency review standard)
Interest of J.A.G., 552 N.W.2d 317 (N.D. 1996) (implication of agreement in conspiracies)
Serr, 1998 ND 66 (N.D. 1998) (requiring more than mere knowledge or presence for conspiracy)
United States v. Zafiro, 506 U.S. 534 (U.S. 1993) (relevance and prejudice in jury instructions and evidence)
State v. Hoffarth, 456 N.W.2d 111 (N.D. 1990) (combining dangerous offender and sentencing hearings is permissible)
State v. Jensen, 333 N.W.2d 686 (N.D. 1983) (procedural posture for combined hearings)
State v. Carpenter, 2011 ND 20 (N.D. 2011) (abuse of discretion standard in habitual offender determinations)
State v. Moe, 1998 ND 137 (N.D. 1998) (definition and application of detainer under UMDDA)
State v. Moe, 1998 ND 137 (N.D. 1998) (detainers and UMDDA applicability)
State v. Olander, 1998 ND 50 (N.D. 1998) (evidence balancing and Rule 403 considerations)
State v. Klose, 2003 ND 39 (N.D. 2003) (Rule 403 and admission of gruesome pictures)