State v. Isom, 907 N.W.2d 340

Defendant John Daniel Isom, while intoxicated, choked his girlfriend in their home; she was a dating partner and thus a ‘‘family or household member’’ for domestic-violence purposes.
Officer Ingram responded, photographed marks on the victim’s neck, and testified those marks were consistent with strangulation; Isom admitted fault at the scene and testified at trial.
Isom was charged with and convicted by a jury of aggravated assault—domestic violence (class C felony).
After empaneling a twelve-member jury, the court replaced one juror who had misrepresented a relationship with a police officer before the jurors were sworn to try the case; the jury was then sworn and trial proceeded.
At sentencing the court imposed five years with two-and-one-half years to serve and a five-year term of supervised probation; the Department of Corrections notified the court that five years of supervised probation exceeded the statutory maximum in effect at the time.

Issue	State's Argument	Isom's Argument	Held
Whether five years supervised probation was illegal	Sentence valid as imposed	Five years exceeded the statutory maximum for supervised probation for his offense	Reversed as to probation length; five years illegal; remand to impose up to three years
Whether substituting a juror after empanelment violated Rule 24 / double jeopardy	Substitution was permissible because jury had not yet been sworn to try the case	Replacement after empanelment violated Rule 24 and attached jeopardy	Affirmed; no abuse of discretion — jeopardy had not attached prior to the final oath
Whether the district court erred denying judgment of acquittal (insufficient evidence)	Evidence (victim testimony, officer testimony, photos) supported conviction	Evidence insufficient; bruising location did not prove strangulation/serious bodily injury	Affirmed; evidence allowed a reasonable inference of serious bodily injury (airway impediment)
Whether jury-selection procedure was an abuse of discretion	Court followed Rule 24 and cured juror misstatement before oath	Substitution after empanelment was procedurally improper	Affirmed; trial court did not abuse discretion in jury selection

State v. Norman, 2003 ND 66 (statutory interpretation fully reviewable)
State v. Voigt, 2007 ND 100 (jeopardy attaches when jury is empaneled and sworn)
State v. Foley, 2000 ND 91 (jeopardy attaches when defendant is put to trial before trier of fact)
Serfass v. United States, 420 U.S. 377 (attachment of jeopardy begins but does not end double-jeopardy inquiry)
State v. Demarais, 2009 ND 143 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence in criminal cases)