State v. Aune, 953 N.W.2d 601

On May 1, 2019, Steven Aune and his adult twin daughters argued at his home; during the argument Aune picked up a rifle that discharged and struck one daughter (S.A.), who later died.
Aune did not call 911 or render aid; he allowed the other daughter to drive S.A. to the hospital where she died.
Aune was charged with murder (intentional/knowing and, alternatively, causing death with extreme indifference); he requested jury instructions on lesser included offenses (manslaughter and negligent homicide).
The jury acquitted Aune of intentional murder and of murder manifesting extreme indifference, but convicted him of manslaughter; the district court sentenced him to ten years (the statutory maximum for a class B felony).
On appeal Aune argued (1) the guilty manslaughter verdict is inconsistent with the not‑guilty extreme‑indifference murder verdict, and (2) his sentence is illegal because the court considered prior convictions without first determining whether they were uncounseled.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the manslaughter conviction is legally inconsistent with acquittal on murder with extreme indifference	Any alleged inconsistency is not reversible; in any event Aune invited/waived error by requesting the manslaughter instruction and participating in verdict forms	Verdicts are inconsistent because both offenses encompass reckless culpability, so convictions should be reconciled or reversed	Affirmed. Court declined to decide inconsistency because Aune waived any error by requesting the instruction and participating in verdict preparation (invited error)
Whether sentence is illegal because the court relied on prior convictions without first ascertaining whether they were uncounseled	Sentence within statutory limits; prior convictions are a permissible sentencing factor; Aune did not object at sentencing so obvious‑error review applies and no error shown	Court invited to consider an impermissible factor when State didn’t show prior convictions were counseled; criminal history influenced imposition of the maximum term	Affirmed. Sentence was within statutory maximum; Aune failed to show obvious error or that priors were uncounseled or used to enhance sentence; court permissibly considered criminal history among other factors

State v. Lehman, 785 N.W.2d 204 (N.D. 2010) (standard for reconciling jury verdicts)
State v. Jahner, 657 N.W.2d 266 (N.D. 2003) (jury verdicts need not meet strict logical consistency)
State v. Pavlicek, 819 N.W.2d 521 (N.D. 2012) (substantial evidence can support conviction even if jury acquits on related charge)
State v. Rende, 907 N.W.2d 361 (N.D. 2018) (invited error/waiver doctrine precludes a party from challenging a ruling it requested)
State v. Henes, 763 N.W.2d 502 (N.D. 2009) (obvious‑error standard for unpreserved sentencing complaints about uncounseled priors)
State v. Gonzalez, 799 N.W.2d 402 (N.D. 2011) (appellate review confined to statutory limits and whether court substantially relied on impermissible factors)
State v. Corman, 765 N.W.2d 530 (N.D. 2009) (trial court has wide sentencing discretion when within statutory range)