State v. Kleppe, 800 N.W.2d 311

In consolidated appeals, Kleppe and Dethloff challenge trial rulings on defenses and restitution.
Kleppe pleads guilty conditionally to unlawfully hunting and shooting big game; Dethloff pleads guilty conditionally to unlawfully taking and possessing big game.
State moved in limine to exclude evidence on depredation and defense of property in both cases.
Kleppe’s trial court decision: depredation defense excluded; defense of property not raised on constitutional grounds; offense deemed strict liability; guilty plea preserved for appeal.
Dethloff’s trial court decision: depredation and defense of property deemed inapplicable; defense of excuse/mistake of law initially denied but later discussed; restitution ordered at $8,500.
On appeal, issues include evidentiary rulings, jury instructions on excuse and mistake of law, constitutional defenses, and restitution amount.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the in limine rulings excluding depredation and defense of property evidence were an abuse of discretion.	Kleppe and Dethloff argue the defenses were relevant and should have been admissible.	State contends depredation and property defenses do not apply to big game deer and evidence was not relevant.	No abuse; depredation not applicable to deer; property defense not properly supported.
Whether the constitutional defense of defense of property was properly addressed	Kleppe and Dethloff claim constitutional defense should be admissible.	State argues lack of adequate briefing and authority to support the claim; waiver.	Waived; issue not addressed on appeal.
Whether the trial court erred in denying jury instructions on excuse and mistake of law	Kleppe and Dethloff assert excuses apply to strict liability and should have instructions.	State contends strict liability precludes defenses; no applicable excuses.	Correctly declined; no applicable defenses given strict liability.
Whether the restitution amount of $8,500 was properly determined	State asserts base value; no detailed evidence of deer age/size/condition presented.	Dethloff argues value should reflect deer ages/conditions; base value insufficient.	Abused discretion; restitution remanded for a new hearing with proper valuation evidence.

State v. Buchholz, 2006 ND 227 (ND 2006) (trial court broad discretion on evidentiary relevance)
State v. Haugen, 2007 ND 195 (ND 2007) (strict liability offenses and culpability absence regimes)
State v. Holte, 2001 ND 133 (ND 2001) (affirmative defenses may apply to strict liability in rare circumstances)
State v. Rasmussen, 524 N.W.2d 843 (ND 1994) (public policy factors for affirmative defenses in strict liability contexts)
State v. Ness, 2009 ND 182 (ND 2009) (excuse defense when belief of necessity may justify conduct)
State v. Zottnick, 2011 ND 84 (ND 2011) (jury instructions on defenses; fair and adequate guidance to juries)