State v. Bruce
818 N.W.2d 747
N.D.2012Background
- Bruce was convicted at a bench trial of menacing under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-17-05 after a May 29, 2011 incident with Fargo police.
- Evidence came from three Fargo police officers (Ferris, Moszer, Fylling) who testified Bruce threatened to kick them and put them in the hospital, with clenched fists and steps toward them.
- Officers described Bruce’s intoxication, aggressive demeanor, and lack of weapons, and Bruce punched a bank sign after the encounter.
- The district court denied Bruce’s Rule 29(a) motion, found him guilty, and discussed the fear element and possible escalation by officers.
- Bruce appeals, arguing misapplication of the statute and an improper standard of review; the State cross-appears to urge sufficiency review and proper consideration of officers’ fear.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the district court’s application of the fear element correct? | Bruce argues misapplication of imminence. | Bruce contends Kurle controls; no imminent threat. | Court upheld correct application; fear element satisfied. |
| What standard of review applies to sufficiency of the evidence? | Bruce favors de novo review. | State argues sufficiency review governs. | Court adopts sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard. |
| Can subjective fear of officers satisfy the mens rea for menacing? | Bruce suggests fear is not properly based on immediacy. | State relies on officers’ fear and Kurle/Biddle to support imminence. | Court allows consideration of subjective fear under the statute. |
| Did the evidence reasonably support a finding that Bruce knowingly placed or attempted to place officers in fear of imminent serious bodily injury? | Not explicitly stated beyond general sufficiency claims. | State presented threats, fists, proximity, and intoxication as basis for fear. | Yes; sufficient evidence supports guilt. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Kurle, 390 N.W.2d 48 (N.D. 1986) (defines imminence and affirms fear-based reasoning under the statute)
- State v. Touche, 549 N.W.2d 193 (N.D. 1996) (discusses fear element in menacing context (terrorizing-related discussion))
- State v. Hass, 268 N.W.2d 456 (N.D. 1978) (menacing as lesser-included of terrorizing; fear element compatibility)
- Biddle v. Dist. Court, 516 P.2d 645 (Colo. 1973) (subjective fear as basis for menacing corroboration (cited in Kurle))
- State v. Nakvinda, 2011 ND 217, 807 N.W.2d 204 (N.D. 2011) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)