State v. Haney, 998 N.W.2d 817

Background

On January 1, 2022, a shooting occurred in a Dickinson bar parking lot involving Demetris Haney, Jamaal Brown, Alexander Aseph, and another individual; surveillance video and photos captured gunfire.
Haney was charged with reckless endangerment, terrorizing, conspiracy to commit murder, and two counts of attempted murder; the conspiracy charge was later dismissed and a three-day jury trial was held.
State evidence (detective testimony and video) indicated Haney raised and fired a firearm before Brown and Aseph returned fire; Haney testified he fired in self-defense, emptying his gun and firing five rounds.
After the State rested, Haney moved for judgment of acquittal under N.D.R.Crim.P. 29; the motion was denied; jury acquitted on attempted murder counts but convicted Haney of two counts of aggravated assault (lesser-included), reckless endangerment, and terrorizing, and found him a dangerous special offender.
On appeal Haney argued (1) insufficient evidence for terrorizing, (2) structural/public-trial error from in-chamber conferences and unrecorded sidebars, and (3) due process error regarding record reconstruction; the Supreme Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for terrorizing (Rule 29)	State: Video, casings, and detective testimony show Haney raised and fired at others, satisfying nonverbal 'threat' and intent or reckless disregard	Haney: No verbal threat, no brandishing proven, actions were self-defense and not a threat as defined	Affirmed: Viewing evidence most favorably to State, a reasonable jury could find Haney threatened violence and intended or recklessly disregarded causing fear; conviction supported
Public-trial right / structural error from in-chamber conferences and unrecorded sidebars	State: Conferences addressed routine administrative/evidentiary matters; some on-record; brief sidebars ordinarily do not implicate public-trial right	Haney: In-chamber conferences and unrecorded sidebars denied his public-trial right and created structural error requiring reversal	Affirmed: In-chamber conferences were on the record and routine; sidebars not recorded not shown to be closures implicating the Sixth Amendment; Haney did not preserve objection or reconstruct record, so no obvious error shown
Due process challenge to record-reconstruction requirement	State: Appellate rules permit reconstruction under N.D.R.App.P. 10; Frederick explains burden and is consistent with rules	Haney: Frederick and Appellate Rule 10 shift unconstitutional burden to appellant and may force counsel to be witnesses or create conflicts	Denied: Haney provided no developed constitutional argument or authority; rule and Frederick upheld; speculative professional-ethics concerns unavailing

Key Cases Cited

State v. Yoney, 2020 ND 118, 943 N.W.2d 791 (insufficiency standard: view evidence in light most favorable to verdict)
State v. Bear, 2015 ND 36, 859 N.W.2d 595 (defendant must show no reasonable inference of guilt exists)
State v. Fleck, 2022 ND 49, 971 N.W.2d 387 (circumstantial evidence can justify conviction when probative)
State v. Johnson, 2021 ND 161, 964 N.W.2d 500 (elements of terrorizing defined)
State v. Linner, 2023 ND 57, 988 N.W.2d 586 (structural-error/public-trial framework and de novo review)
State v. Frederick, 2023 ND 77, 989 N.W.2d 504 (record preservation and reconstruction under N.D.R.App.P. 10; inadequate record is not structural error absent inability to reconstruct)
State v. Pendleton, 2022 ND 149, 978 N.W.2d 641 (brief sidebars/bench conferences addressing routine matters ordinarily do not implicate public-trial right)
State v. Morales, 2019 ND 206, 932 N.W.2d 106 (prompt availability of a record can satisfy public-trial right)
State v. Smith, 2023 ND 82, 989 N.W.2d 490 (in-chamber conferences are distinct from trial proceedings; routine administrative matters do not necessarily implicate public-trial right)