974 N.W.2d 401
N.D.2022Background
- Defendant Randy Joseph Houle was charged with aggravated assault, criminal attempt, and false information to law enforcement; a jury trial occurred in November 2021.
- Houle and the State both requested North Dakota pattern jury instruction K-5.16 addressing direct and circumstantial evidence; the district court used that pattern instruction.
- Houle received the instructions before trial, had two opportunities to object or request additional instructions, but did not object and agreed to the instructions as given.
- The district court granted a Rule 29 motion as to criminal attempt; the jury convicted Houle of aggravated assault and false information; he was sentenced to five years with one year suspended.
- On appeal Houle argued the court erred by not including additional language requiring circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable theory of innocence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the jury instruction on direct vs. circumstantial evidence was legally deficient | State: the pattern instruction was proper and the additional "exclude every reasonable theory" instruction is disfavored | Houle: omission of language requiring circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable theory of innocence affected his substantial rights | Court: No reviewable error — Houle invited the instructions by requesting/agreeing to them; appellate relief barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121 (1954) (rejected mandatory "exclude every reasonable hypothesis" circumstantial-evidence instruction as confusing when reasonable-doubt standard is given)
- State v. Rende, 907 N.W.2d 361 (N.D. 2018) (invited-error doctrine precludes challenging trial rulings a party invited)
- State v. White Bird, 858 N.W.2d 642 (N.D. 2015) (invited error doctrine and limits on reversal for invited errors)
- State v. Watkins, 898 N.W.2d 442 (N.D. 2017) (defendant cannot seek reversal based on error he invited)
- United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258 (2010) (discusses narrow category of structural errors that survive invited-error analysis)
