State v. Baltrusch, 934 N.W.2d 886

Gary (trustee) brought an eviction action under N.D.C.C. ch. 47-32 to remove his brother Glen from the trust-owned Harvey house; final judgment (Oct 13, 2017) ordered Glen to vacate by Oct 20, 2017. A special writ of execution was served April 11, 2018 with a sheriff’s return.
Sheriff, Gary, and Milo observed Glen back at the residence beginning April 13, 2018; the State charged 24 counts of disobedience of a judicial order consolidated into four counts covering specific date ranges in April–May 2018.
Trial evidence included testimony from the sheriff, a police officer, Gary and Milo, body‑camera video, and trail‑camera photos showing Glen in and around the home (sometimes in underwear); Glen’s mother Delores testified she invited him back.
A jury convicted Glen on all four counts under N.D.C.C. § 12.1‑10‑05; court imposed concurrent suspended 30‑day jail terms, 360 days unsupervised probation, and a firearms restriction.
On appeal Glen argued (1) insufficient evidence to sustain convictions and (2) obvious error/multiplicity under the Double Jeopardy Clause as to counts 2–4; he raised other challenges below only on appeal and the court declined to consider them.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to prove disobedience of final eviction order	State: witness testimony, bodycam, and trail‑cam photos show Glen was living at/returning to the property during charged dates	Baltrusch: challenged sufficiency of the evidence	Guilty verdicts upheld; evidence sufficient when viewed in light most favorable to the verdict (standard from State v. Lyons)
Whether the writ/service on April 11, 2018 satisfied the eviction judgment and precluded later violations	State: eviction order remains a final order; presence after restoration of possession can violate it; sheriff’s return is rebuttable	Baltrusch: argued the writ/return satisfied the judgment (not raised below)	Not preserved for review; Court assumed for purposes of opinion the eviction remained a final order and proceeded; issue not addressed on merits
Double jeopardy / multiplicity from separate counts covering overlapping periods	State: counts alleged discrete dates/time periods; multiple counts were permissible here	Baltrusch: counts 2–4 were duplicative and should be dismissed for double jeopardy	No obvious error; defendant identified no clearly established law to require merger, and concurrent sentences meant no substantial rights affected

State v. Lyons, 930 N.W.2d 156 (2019) (sets standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
Monster Heavy Haulers, LLC v. Goliath Energy Servs., LLC, 883 N.W.2d 917 (2016) (sheriff’s return of service creates a rebuttable presumption)
State v. Friesz, 898 N.W.2d 688 (2017) (defining element of willful disobedience of a final court order)
Hildenbrand v. Capital RV Ctr., Inc., 794 N.W.2d 733 (2011) (law‑of‑the‑case limits appellate review to issues preserved)
State v. Hoehn, 932 N.W.2d 553 (2019) (obvious‑error standard for issues not raised below)
State v. Desjarlais, 744 N.W.2d 529 (2008) (no obvious error where law on multiplicity is not clearly established)
State v. Weaver, 638 N.W.2d 30 (2002) (obvious error requires clear deviation from existing law)