State v. Lang
2015 ND 181
| N.D. | 2015Background
- Dallas Lang was charged with felonious restraint (class C felony) based on domestic-related allegations; a jury convicted him and he was sentenced to 30 months (12 months suspended) plus probation.
- During voir dire, a prospective juror volunteered that from his experience many domestic-violence victims change their stories; defense objected immediately and asked to approach the bench.
- The court halted questioning, considered dismissal for cause, then reversed itself and granted the State’s challenge for cause based on the juror’s prior employment with the State’s Attorney Office (juror removed).
- Lang moved for a mistrial after jury selection and later renewed the motion after trial and at sentencing, arguing the juror’s comments poisoned the jury pool; the district court denied each motion.
- Lang also requested a curative instruction to the jury to disregard the voir dire comments but abandoned that request during trial; on appeal he raised the claim under plain/obvious-error review.
- The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed, holding the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying mistrial and did not commit obvious error by not giving a curative instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether voir dire comments by a prospective juror required a mistrial | State: no mistrial needed because questioning ceased and juror was removed | Lang: comments about victims’ veracity poisoned jury pool and caused constitutional error | Court: no abuse of discretion denying mistrial; no manifest injustice |
| Whether trial court should have given a curative instruction to disregard voir dire comments | State: general instruction to decide on trial evidence sufficed | Lang: requested curative instruction; later abandoned it and asks for obvious-error review | Court: no obvious/plain error; failure to give specific curative instruction did not cause serious injustice |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Doll, 812 N.W.2d 381 (N.D. 2012) (mistrial standard and abuse-of-discretion review)
- State v. Skarsgard, 739 N.W.2d 786 (N.D. 2007) (mistrial is an extreme remedy reserved for manifest injustice)
- State v. Nikle, 708 N.W.2d 867 (N.D. 2006) (prospective juror comments do not automatically compel mistrial; jurors presumed able to be impartial)
- Mach v. Stewart, 137 F.3d 630 (9th Cir. 1997) (prospective juror’s repeated statements amounted to expert testimony and warranted mistrial)
- United States v. Small, 423 F.3d 1164 (10th Cir. 2005) (court not required to dismiss or question panel after a single prejudicial remark)