924 N.W.2d 776
N.D.2019Background
- In June 2017 Hamre was charged with two counts of simple assault on a peace officer, one count of fleeing/attempting to elude, and one count of preventing arrest arising from (1) a June 5 traffic stop where Hamre drove away after Detective Swan retained his license, and (2) a June 15 storage-unit altercation with Detectives Swan and Malone.
- Hamre was jailed on $20,000 bail and the court set a timeline with a preliminary hearing in July and a jury trial in October 2017.
- Hamre cycled between court-appointed counsel and self-representation, repeatedly requested more time and a hearing on a motion to dismiss (claiming police violated Minnesota warrant protocol), and filed several letters requesting a speedy trial.
- The dispositional/trial schedule was continued several times; a judge recused and another was assigned; Hamre’s motion to dismiss was denied in a written order issued without an evidentiary hearing.
- Hamre represented himself at the January 23, 2018 jury trial; the jury convicted him on all four counts. He appealed, asserting speedy-trial violation, denial of evidentiary hearing on the dismissal motion, and insufficiency of the evidence; he also raised a Batson-type juror-strike claim in a self-represented supplemental filing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Speedy trial | State: trial scheduling and delay were not attributable to prosecution; no constitutional deprivation. | Hamre: delay violated state and federal speedy-trial rights. | Affirmed — no violation; delay < 1 year, much of it attributable to Hamre’s requests, counsel changes, and failure to properly move to dismiss; no showing of prejudice. |
| Evidentiary hearing on motion to dismiss | State: district court properly resolved motion on briefs; no timely request for hearing. | Hamre: court erred by denying an evidentiary hearing on his pretrial dismissal motion. | Affirmed — Hamre did not timely and properly request oral argument/evidentiary hearing under N.D.R.Ct. 3.2; self-represented status affords no procedural leniency. |
| Sufficiency of evidence (fleeing/eluding) | State: eyewitness testimony showed visual signal and Hamre drove away while lights were activated. | Hamre: evidence insufficient to prove offense. | Affirmed — testimony supports inference Hamre willfully fled after being signaled to stop. |
| Sufficiency of evidence (simple assault, preventing arrest) | State: detectives testified to being identified as police and suffering pain/bruising; struggle required substantial force. | Hamre: detectives were in plain clothes; no bodily injury or proof of intent to prevent arrest. | Affirmed — evidence supported that detectives were acting as officers, suffered bodily pain/bruising, and Hamre employed force that required effort to overcome, satisfying the elements. |
| Batson/sex-discrimination in jury strikes (supplemental) | N/A (raised by Hamre) | State: issue not preserved for appeal. | Not considered — claim raised for first time on appeal; waived. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. 1972) (framework for balancing speedy-trial factors)
- Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (U.S. 1992) (delay of one year or more is presumptively prejudicial)
- State v. Erickson, 241 N.W.2d 854 (N.D. 1976) (N.D.R.Crim.P. 48 as vehicle to enforce speedy-trial right/dismissal for want of prosecution)
- State v. Koenig, 907 N.W.2d 344 (N.D. 2018) (defendant must timely move to dismiss to preserve federal speedy-trial claim; review standards)
- State v. Moran, 711 N.W.2d 915 (N.D. 2006) (application of Barker factors in state context)
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (U.S. 1986) (peremptory strikes based on protected class prohibited)
- State v. Hannah, 873 N.W.2d 668 (N.D. 2016) (pain as evidence of bodily injury)
- State v. $3260.00 U.S. Currency, 910 N.W.2d 839 (N.D. 2018) (N.D.R.Ct. 3.2 motion/hearing procedures)
- Desert Partners IV, L.P. v. Benson, 855 N.W.2d 608 (N.D. 2014) (rules on deciding motions on briefs without hearing)
- Anton v. Anton, 442 N.W.2d 445 (N.D. 1989) (timely request for oral argument requires court to hold hearing)