State v. Estrada, 830 N.W.2d 617

Estrada charged in district court with attempted murder, aggravated assault, and two counts of reckless endangerment after a Fargo theater parking lot shooting.
State proved Garza was shot six times; eyewitness testimony from Garza, Stodola, and Roskom was presented.
Stodola and Garza were involved romantically; on the day of the shooting they were with Roskom and Garza’s car, leading to the confrontation.
Estrada testified he went to the theater to meet Stodola, claimed Garza threatened him, and he shot to disarm Garza; he fled and was arrested.
Jury convicted Estrada on a lesser aggravated assault with a firearm, aggravated assault, and two reckless endangerment counts; district court imposed consecutive sentences.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Self-defense instructions—justification vs excuse	Estrada argues instruction failed to distinguish two defenses.	Estrada contends the instruction should clarify both defenses.	No obvious error; instruction read as a whole was adequate.
Nonexistence of defense burden instruction	State failed to separate justified vs excused self-defense burdens.	Instructions did not differentiate; burden issue improper.	No obvious error; jury was adequately instructed on State’s burden.
Limits on use of deadly force instruction	Instruction must require reasonableness and necessity; must reference retreat requirement.	Court’s instruction, including reasonableness belief, was sufficient.	Not obvious error; jury instruction overall adequate.
Reckless endangerment instruction overbreadth	Omission of 'particular' renders instruction overbroad.	Context shows jury understood target as public; no error.	Not obvious error; instruction read as a whole warned law.
Prosecutorial misconduct	Leading questions and hostile-witness designation biased trial.	Questions were justified to elicit hostile-witness testimony; no prejudice.	Not misconduct; district court acted within discretion.

State v. Starke, 2011 ND 147 (ND 2011) (instructive standard for reviewing jury instructions as a whole)
State v. Jaster, 2004 ND 223 (ND 2004) (omission of 'particular' may be curable when read in context)
State v. Kensmoe, 2001 ND 190 (ND 2001) (obvious error standard for preserved/unpreserved issues)
State v. Smith, 1999 ND 109 (ND 1999) (collective jury instruction evaluation)
State v. Olander, 1998 ND 50 (ND 1998) (obvious error review when not properly preserved)
State v. Huether, 2010 ND 233 (ND 2010) (sufficiency of evidence standard; view evidence in light favorable to verdict)
State v. Kruckenberg, 2008 ND 212 (ND 2008) (hostile witness designation and prosecutorial questioning context)
State v. Hanson, 256 N.W.2d 364 (ND 1977) (interpretation of reckless endangerment language and 'particular')