946 N.W.2d 503
N.D.2020Background
- In the early hours of September 3, 2018, police responded to a report of a vehicle with the driver slumped over the steering wheel.
- As officers approached, the vehicle moved; officers knocked on the window, the driver (Helm) woke and stopped the car.
- Helm voluntarily submitted to field sobriety tests and a preliminary breath test, was arrested for DUI, taken to jail, and refused further testing.
- At trial Helm moved for acquittal/dismissal arguing his vehicle was not on a public roadway; the district court denied the motion.
- A jury found Helm guilty of driving under the influence, a fourth offense within fifteen years; Helm appealed arguing the State failed to prove he was under the influence.
- The Supreme Court held Helm’s insufficiency argument was unpreserved because his Rule 29 motion raised only the location issue, and affirmed the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Helm may raise on appeal a sufficiency-of-evidence claim that he was "under the influence" when his Rule 29 motion at trial challenged only the location of the vehicle | State: Helm failed to preserve the sufficiency claim because his Rule 29 motion was limited to the public-roadway/location issue | Helm: The State failed to present evidence he was under the influence and may challenge sufficiency on appeal | Court: Claim unpreserved; a defendant who specifies grounds in a Rule 29 motion cannot assert different grounds on appeal; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Himmerick, 499 N.W.2d 568 (N.D. 1993) (motions to dismiss/direct verdict are treated as Rule 29 motions)
- State v. Yineman, 651 N.W.2d 648 (N.D. 2002) (defendant must move for judgment of acquittal and specify grounds to preserve sufficiency claim on appeal)
- State v. Trevino, 807 N.W.2d 211 (N.D. 2011) (state courts may look to federal interpretations of similar procedural rules as persuasive)
- U.S. v. Daniels, 930 F.3d 393 (5th Cir. 2019) (federal Rule 29 jurisprudence requires specificity to preserve sufficiency arguments)
- U.S. v. Osborne, 886 F.3d 604 (6th Cir. 2018) (same)
- U.S. v. Chong Lam, 677 F.3d 190 (4th Cir. 2012) (same)
- U.S. v. Goode, 483 F.3d 676 (10th Cir. 2007) (same)
- U.S. v. Belardo-Quinones, 71 F.3d 941 (1st Cir. 1995) (same)