State v. Hinojosa
2011 N.D. LEXIS 109
N.D.2011Background
- Hinojosa was charged with delivery of methamphetamine within 1000 feet of North Dakota State University, a class AA felony, alleged to have occurred June 3, 2009.
- He filed a Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Act request on Oct 2, 2009 while imprisoned on a prior sentence.
- A jury trial was set for Dec 29, 2009; preliminary hearing was continued to Dec 21, 2009.
- The State sought a further continuance due to a vacationing chemist; defense counsel withdrew due to a conflict of interest eight days before trial.
- The district court granted the continuance over defense objection, citing good cause related to counsel replacement and witness availability; trial occurred April 20–21, 2010, resulting in a guilty verdict.
- Hinojosa appeals on (1) Detainers Act handling and (2) sufficiency of the evidence for the distance element.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 90-day Detainers Act deadline was violated by the continuance | Hinojosa asserts violation of the 90-day limit | State contends good cause supported postponement | No abuse of discretion; no Detainers Act violation. |
| Whether good cause existed for delaying beyond 90 days | Exclusion due to defense conflict and witness unavailability | Delay necessary for effective counsel and witness preparation | Yes, good cause supported the delay. |
| Whether prejudice from the delay was shown | Delay caused prejudice to defense | No substantial prejudice; inmate already incarcerated | No demonstrated prejudice. |
| Whether evidence sufficed to prove delivery within 1000 feet of the university | Map measurements showed proximity to the university | Argues insufficient mapping from door to measurement points | Evidence sufficient to support conviction. |
| Preservation of sufficiency issue post Deutscher | Deutscher bar preclusion of sufficiency review | Deutscher does not bar preservation | Sufficiency issue preserved and reviewed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Moe, 581 N.W.2d 468 (ND 1998) (Detainers Act limited to imprisoned defendants; discretionary continuances allowed for good cause)
- State v. Carlson, 257? N.W.2d? (ND 1977) (Detainers Act scope and rights thereof)
- State v. Olsen, 540 N.W.2d 149 (ND 1995) (Court may grant State a continuance for good cause)
- State v. Kania, 341 N.W.2d 361 (ND 1983) (Abuse of discretion standard for continuance decisions)
- Foster, 560 N.W.2d 194 (ND 1997) (Good cause analysis for continuances; effect on right to speedy trial)
- Moore, 725 N.W.2d 910 (ND 2007) (Lack of prejudice weakens Detainers Act claim)
- Fulks, 566 N.W.2d 418 (ND 1997) (Delay attributable to defendant not chargeable to State)
- Taylor, 298 S.W.3d 482 (Mo. 2009) (Defense need for preparation cited as good cause)
- Deutscher, 766 N.W.2d 442 (ND 2009) (Preservation issue regarding sufficiency review after verdict)
- Grant, 776 N.W.2d 209 (ND 2009) (Preservation of sufficiency challenge after closing)
- McAvoy, 767 N.W.2d 874 (ND 2009) (Affirming preservation of sufficiency challenge)
- Hidanovic, 747 N.W.2d 463 (ND 2008) (Standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Demarais, 770 N.W.2d 246 (ND 2009) (Standard for sufficiency in proximity/distance cases)