State v. McGowen, 943 N.W.2d 817

On Feb. 22, 2019, James McGowen became agitated during booking at the Burleigh-Morton County Detention Center; officers Psyck and Beine intervened, a physical altercation occurred, and officers tackled and restrained McGowen.
Officers testified (and a video was shown) that McGowen struck or attempted to strike officers and continued to flail on the ground; both officers sought medical treatment.
McGowen was charged with two counts of simple assault on corrections officers; a jury convicted him on both counts.
Restitution was left open; the State sought $1,855.31 based on medical payments by Workforce Safety & Insurance (WSI).
The district court granted the State a short continuance to secure WSI testimony, held a second restitution hearing, and ordered $1,855.31 in restitution.
McGowen appealed, arguing (1) insufficient evidence for the convictions, (2) the district court abused its discretion in granting the continuance, and (3) the restitution award was improper.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for assault convictions	State: Officers’ testimony plus video supported a reasonable inference that McGowen willfully caused bodily injury to each officer and knew they were corrections employees	McGowen: Evidence did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt he struck or caused the officers’ injuries	Affirmed: Viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, the testimony and video permitted a rational jury to convict both counts
Continuance of restitution hearing	State: Requested continuance to present the WSI employee who authorized/paid medical bills; needed to establish nexus and amounts	McGowen: Objected; argued court failed to require "good cause" and was not neutral; continuance prejudiced defendant/appeal	Affirmed: Court did not abuse discretion; balanced defendant’s appeal delay against victim’s restitution rights and allowed a prompt rescheduling
Restitution award of $1,855.31	State: WSI claims adjuster testified bills were reviewed, associated with the Feb. 22 incident, and payments totaled $1,855.31	McGowen: Argued injuries were not directly caused by his actions (e.g., Beine’s injury from tackling Psyck)	Affirmed: By preponderance of the evidence the court found an immediate and intimate causal connection sufficient under the restitution statute and precedent

State v. Mohammed, 939 N.W.2d 498 (N.D. 2020) (standard for sufficiency-of-evidence review)
State v. Jacobson, 419 N.W.2d 899 (N.D. 1988) (sufficiency review framework)
State v. Matuska, 379 N.W.2d 273 (N.D. 1985) (jury inference standard)
Everett v. State, 757 N.W.2d 530 (N.D. 2008) (trial court’s continuance decision reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Kunkel v. State, 452 N.W.2d 337 (N.D. 1990) (no mechanical test; facts control continuance review)
State v. McAllister, 939 N.W.2d 502 (N.D. 2020) (restitution standard and limits under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-08)
State v. Clayton, 881 N.W.2d 239 (N.D. 2016) (direct causal connection for restitution does not require absolute certainty)
State v. Rogers, 919 N.W.2d 193 (N.D. 2018) (restitution limited to damages directly related to the criminal offense)
State v. Pippin, 496 N.W.2d 50 (N.D. 1993) (describing immediate and intimate causal connection required for restitution)