State v. Clark
818 N.W.2d 739
| N.D. | 2012Background
- Clark convicted of theft in 2009 after guilty plea; conviction reversed on federal habeas and retried.
- At Acme Electric Tool Crib, Clark used the name Clark Construction to purchase items, generating invoices signed as Clark Const.
- A generator was charged to the Clark Construction account; Clark did not pay for it and later retrieved the generator.
- Acme billed Clark Construction; company representatives denied authorization; police investigated; attempts to contact Clark were unsuccessful.
- Clark requested an honest-belief defense jury instruction; court denied for lack of evidentiary support; jury convicted after trial with habitual-offender enhancement.
- Court addressed other issues including preservation of error, sufficiency of evidence, evidentiary handling of invoices under Brady, and overall sentence; Clark appeals and this Court affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Honest-belief defense instruction sufficiency | Clark argues evidence supports belief to claim to property | Clark contends he had a belief to the property | No evidence supported instruction; no error in denial. |
| Instruction on theft by mistake proper | No error in giving the instruction | Correctness disputed | Not obvious error; instructions fairly advised the law. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for theft conviction | Evidence shows knowledge and unauthorized control | Insufficient to show knowingly took property | Sufficient evidence; reasonable inferences support guilt. |
| Sentence within statutory limits; vindictiveness | Enhanced sentence after retrial unfair | No vindictiveness; within statutory bounds | Sentence within limits; no vindictiveness under Pearce/Alabama v. Smith. |
| Brady/notice of invoices; pretrial disclosure | State suppressed unmarked copies of invoices | Copies provided; no prejudice | No Brady violation; evidence admitted without prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Starke, 2011 ND 147 (ND 2011) (jury instruction standards; relevance and application)
- State v. Lehman, 2010 ND 134 (ND 2010) (review of instructions as a whole)
- State v. Ness, 2009 ND 182 (ND 2009) (existence of defense evidence required for instruction)
- State v. Jacob, 2006 ND 246 (ND 2006) (objection requirements and preservation under Crim.P. 30/52)
- State v. Fraser, 2000 ND 53 (ND 2000) (circumstantial evidence establishing state of mind)
- State v. Nakvinda, 2011 ND 217 (ND 2011) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Ness (cited), 2009 ND 182 (ND 2009) (quote included above; see Ness citation)
- Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (U.S. 1975) (presumption of vindictiveness in sentencing after reversal)
- Alabama v. Smith, 490 U.S. 794 (U.S. 1989) (overruled Pearce partial on vindictiveness)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (prosecution suppression of favorable evidence)