State v. Jessee, 919 N.W.2d 335

Background

In Nov. 2016 protesters and law enforcement confronted each other at a Morton County road crossing where railroad tracks met County Road 82 during Dakota Access Pipeline protests.
Law enforcement observed a small group placing debris on the tracks; trains were held and Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) stopped service for about 1 hour 45 minutes, with a claimed cost of $2,071.19.
Rebecca Jessee was present on or near the tracks, refused dispersal orders, was arrested and charged with tampering with a public service under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-21-06.
At a bench trial the court found BNSF was a public service, the delay was a substantial interruption, and Jessee’s presence constituted tampering; sentence imposition was deferred for one year.
On appeal the Supreme Court reviewed sufficiency of the evidence and whether passive presence on tracks can constitute "tampering with the tangible property of another."

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Jessee's presence on tracks constituted "tampering" with tangible property under § 12.1-21-06	Jessee: mere passive presence does not alter, damage, or tamper with property; insufficient to prove tampering	State: presence/interference that caused a substantial interruption qualifies as tampering; points to broader statutory and analog definitions	Reversed: evidence shows trespass/unauthorized presence but not tampering with tangible property; no alteration or harmful change shown
Whether the statutory definition of "tampering" in another chapter (§ 49-04.1-01) should inform § 12.1-21-06	Jessee: not applicable; different context	State: that definition supports treating "tampering" broadly to include interference	Rejected: § 49-04.1-01 is limited to its chapter and context differs; not persuasive or controlling
Whether the interruption (1 hr 45 min) qualified as a "substantial interruption"	Jessee: argues insufficiency of proof tying her conduct to tampering despite interruption	State: interruption duration and economic loss demonstrate substantial interruption	Court: interruption was substantial but causation from Jessee's passive presence to tampering was not shown
Standard of review for sufficiency of evidence	State: bench-trial findings should be upheld if competent evidence supports inference of guilt	Jessee: challenges sufficiency under established standard	Court applied standard and concluded evidence was insufficient to support tampering conviction

Key Cases Cited

State v. Johnson, 425 N.W.2d 903 (N.D. 1988) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence in criminal bench trials)
State v. Demarais, 770 N.W.2d 246 (N.D. 2009) (standard for evaluating sufficiency of evidence and reasonable inferences)
State v. Chacano, 817 N.W.2d 369 (N.D. 2012) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
Edinger v. Governing Auth. of Stutsman Cnty. Corr. Ctr. and Law Enforcement Ctr., 695 N.W.2d 447 (N.D. 2005) (when statutory definitions apply across statutes)
State v. Damron, 575 N.W.2d 912 (N.D. 1998) (tampering requires harmful change; cutting telephone lines was tampering)
W.W. Wallwork, Inc. v. Duchscherer, 501 N.W.2d 751 (N.D. 1993) (tampering with odometer involved rolling back mileage)
In re Estate of Larsen, 143 N.W.2d 656 (N.D. 1966) (tampering requires alteration of a written instrument)
Erickson v. North Dakota Workmen's Comp. Bureau, 123 N.W.2d 292 (N.D. 1963) (material objects must be shown free of tampering before admission)
Faherty v. Commonwealth, 781 N.E.2d 864 (Mass. App. Ct. 2003) (vandalism inserting objects into a meter constitutes tampering)
Kreiling v. Field, 431 F.2d 502 (9th Cir. 1970) (small internal movement rendering a phone inoperable was tampering)