State v. Arot
2013 ND 182
| N.D. | 2013Background
- Arot, charged with three counts of gross sexual imposition, seeks dismissal arguing lack of jurisdiction due to infancy.
- Dates of offenses span summer 2011, latest August 24, 2011.
- Arot’s father affidavits that Arot was born in late summer 1993 after Sudanese refugee immigration.
- Birth date on records shown as 1/1/1993, a date likely arbitrarily assigned for immigrants.
- State presented three witnesses whose testimony supported an ordinary January 1 birthday assignment; district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
- This appeal review addresses whether probable cause or preponderance of the evidence establishes jurisdiction and age.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court properly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over infancy. | State contends evidence supports eighteen-year age. | Arot’s affidavit and birth data show not eighteen during offenses. | Affirmed dismissal; jurisdiction not shown. |
| What standard of proof governs age for jurisdiction in this case. | State argues preponderance of the evidence. | Arot’s birth date disputed; no clear authority for preponderance. | Preponderance of the evidence applied; State failed to prove-age by that standard. |
| Whether January 1, 1993, is the actual birth date or an assigned date. | Records reflect 1/1/1993 as birth date. | Birth date assigned due to immigration records; not proven actual birth. | No irrebuttable presumption; district court’s findings supported by evidence. |
| Whether admission of age by Arot later can rebut earlier birth-date records. | Admissions after offenses could rebut records. | Admissions occurred after offenses; not probative of date at time of offenses. | Admissions after offenses not sufficient to prove age at time of offenses. |
Key Cases Cited
- Howe v. State, 247 N.W.2d 647 (N.D. 1976) (motion to dismiss tests sufficiency of information; not trial on evidence)
- In re R.A., 2011 ND 119, 799 N.W.2d 332 (N.D. 2011) (probable cause standard in juvenile jurisdiction transfers)
- Hammeren v. Hammeren, 2012 ND 225, 823 N.W.2d 482 (N.D. 2012) (clear error review; credibility not reassessed on appeal)
- Wigginton v. Wigginton, 2005 ND 31, 692 N.W.2d 108 (N.D. 2005) (mixed questions of law and fact; de novo standard for legal questions)
- Heick v. Erickson, 2001 ND 200, 636 N.W.2d 913 (N.D. 2001) (probable cause standard; juvenile proceedings)
- Hinkel v. Racek, 514 N.W.2d 382 (N.D. 1994) (probable cause standard to determine jurisdiction)
- State ex rel. Styles v. Baeverstad, 97 N.W.2d 548 (N.D. 1903) (probable cause establishes jurisdiction; not de novo review)
- State v. Ballone, 422 So.2d 900 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982) (probable cause/complaint-based jurisdiction in some jurisdictions)
- State v. Ali, 806 N.W.2d 45 (Minn. 2011) (birthdate evidence common in immigrant populations)
- Salgado-Ocampo, United States v., 50 F. Supp. 2d 908 (D. Minn. 1999) (preponderance vs. other standards in jurisdictional proof)