State v. Carpenter, 793 N.W.2d 765

Carpenter was convicted by a jury of endangering by fire or explosion and was treated as a habitual offender for sentencing.
The jury found Carpenter guilty of placing another in danger of death under extreme indifference and of property damage over $2,000; sentencing focused on the former.
The State filed habitual offender notice one day before trial; Carpenter objected to the timing as unreasonable.
After verdict, the jury determined Carpenter was a habitual offender; the court then enhanced the sentence.
The verdict form presented two alternative bases for guilt; Carpenter did not object to forms, and the court treated the proceeding as a single conviction but with a potential for multiple bases of guilt.
The court ultimately remanded for resentencing upon proper notice, while affirming the conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence to support the guilty verdict	Addai supports proving guilt by circumstantial evidence	Carpenter argues the circumstantial evidence was insufficient and inconsistent	Conviction affirmed; evidence had probative force and supported guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Verdict consistency and whether the verdict was properly articulated	Carpenter contends inconsistency between verdict findings	Court did not need to address due to lack of adequate articulation	Court declined to resolve due to inadequate articulation; no reversal on this basis.
Whether the verdict form was an improper special verdict and its impact	Carpenter argues the form was improper and coercive		Special verdict was improper under Rule 31(e) but error was harmless and not reversible.
Notice and procedure for habitual offender sentence enhancement; prejudice from timing	Carpenter claims one-day notice before trial was unreasonable and prejudicial	Court allowed proceeding; argues procedures ultimately complied with statute	Remand for resentencing upon proper notice; notice timing prejudicial and an abuse of discretion.

State v. Addai, 2010 ND 29 (ND, 2010) (sufficiency review treats circumstantial evidence with deference)
State v. Noorlun, 2005 ND 189 (ND, 2005) (circumstantial evidence admissible to support verdict)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (punishment-enhancement facts must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in some contexts)
State v. Wells, 265 N.W.2d 239 (ND 1978) (historical framework for habitual/dangerous offender sentencing procedures)
State v. Jensen, 251 N.W.2d 182 (ND 1977) (remand for sentencing where notice of enhancement was defective)
State v. Jensen, 333 N.W.2d 686 (ND 1983) (prejudice analysis for notice timing in enhancement cases)
Greybull v. State, 2004 ND 116 (ND 2004) (adequacy of notice for habitual offender enhancements)