997 N.W.2d 845
N.D.2023Background
- Defendant David Geiger, a bank customer, was charged with stalking after repeated encounters and communications with a bank employee whose branch closed his account.
- Relevant conduct: (1) statements at the drive-up teller that alarmed staff; (2) parking across the street from the bank and later outside the bank in another lot; (3) a late-night call to the victim’s personal phone with silence on the line; and (4) a later call to the victim’s office saying, “You will pay for this decision,” and parking on a street with a line of sight to the victim’s residence.
- Bank employees requested police escorting and were instructed to avoid leaving alone; police later arrested Geiger after the victim reported him near her home.
- At trial Geiger moved for judgment of acquittal under N.D.R.Crim.P. 29 arguing the State failed to show intentional conduct causing fear and asserting, without legal support, that parking on public streets is constitutionally protected activity; the court denied the motion and submitted the case to the jury.
- The jury convicted Geiger of stalking under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-17-07.1(2). On appeal Geiger argued the court failed to make the statutory, threshold determination whether his conduct was constitutionally protected and alternatively argued insufficient evidence supported the verdict.
- The Supreme Court of North Dakota held Geiger failed to preserve the constitutional-protection claim and that the evidence was sufficient to support the stalking conviction, and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court was required to decide as a matter of law that defendant's conduct was constitutionally protected under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-17-07.1(5) before submitting evidence to the jury | State: Defendant failed to properly raise a protected-activity claim; no pretrial motion or objection; evidence admissible for jury | Geiger: He asserted parking on public streets was constitutionally protected and the court should have made a legal determination excluding that evidence | Held: Not preserved. Defendant did not timely or adequately raise the claim (no motion in limine, no legal argument, no suppression request), so appellate review is barred; court treated issue as factual and submitted to jury |
| Sufficiency of the evidence to support stalking conviction (course of conduct that causes fear and serves no legitimate purpose) | State: Victim testimony and circumstances (threatening statements, repeated presence, threatening call, parking with line of sight to home) suffice for a rational factfinder to find stalking beyond a reasonable doubt | Geiger: Presence at public locations had legitimate purposes; State failed to disprove legitimate purpose and intent to frighten | Held: Evidence was sufficient when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict; a rational factfinder could find stalking beyond a reasonable doubt |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Curtis, 748 N.W.2d 709 (N.D. 2008) (defendant failed to preserve constitutional-speech defense by not raising it pretrial or providing legal basis)
- State v. Ismail, 981 N.W.2d 896 (N.D. 2022) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence: view evidence in light most favorable to verdict)
- State v. Yineman, 651 N.W.2d 648 (N.D. 2002) (defining sufficiency review and rational factfinder standard)
- State v. Hannah, 873 N.W.2d 668 (N.D. 2016) (appellate courts do not weigh conflicting evidence or assess witness credibility in sufficiency review)
- State v. Rufus, 868 N.W.2d 534 (N.D. 2015) (same principle: do not reweigh evidence on appeal)