State v. Montplaisir
2015 ND 237
| N.D. | 2015Background
- On Sept. 20, 2013, Montplaisir rear-ended a stopped motorcycle in Fargo; officers observed signs of intoxication and his BAC was 0.217%. He was charged under N.D.C.C. § 39-08-01.2(2) (criminal vehicular injury).
- The information tracked the statute, alleging he drove under the influence and “caused substantial bodily or serious bodily injury” to the victim; the State provided medical records and a pretrial brief describing the injuries.
- At a preliminary hearing the court found probable cause to bind Montplaisir over; he sought dismissal arguing the information was deficient and the injuries were not substantial/serious as a matter of law.
- At trial the State presented the victim and two treating physicians; evidence showed ongoing severe leg pain, infection, scarring, and limitations in activities. Montplaisir moved for judgment of acquittal; the motion was denied and the jury convicted him of criminal vehicular injury.
- Montplaisir requested jury instructions defining “substantial bodily injury,” “serious bodily injury,” and an instruction on culpability; the court instructed using Title 12.1 definitions and declined a culpability instruction. He was sentenced to 30 months with 18 suspended (one-year mandatory minimum imposed).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Montplaisir) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of information | Information tracked statute and, with State disclosures, gave adequate notice | Information merely recited legal conclusions re: “substantial/serious bodily injury” and was deficient | Information was adequate; defendant had proper notice |
| Probable cause at preliminary hearing | Probable cause was established to bind over | Insufficient evidence of substantial/serious bodily injury at prelim | Moot on appeal because conviction at trial resolves that challenge |
| Vagueness/definition of “bodily” and injury phrases | Statute (and accepted definitions) give fair warning; Title 12.1 definitions are appropriate reference | “Bodily” limited to trunk; phrase “substantial bodily or serious bodily injury” is vague/overbroad and Title 12.1 defs should not apply | Statute not unconstitutionally vague; Title 12.1 definitions may be consulted and statute is sufficiently definite |
| Culpability and jury instructions | Driving under influence and injury elements sufficed; strict liability applies | Court should have instructed on willful culpability; no intent to injure shown | § 39-08-01.2(2) is a strict liability offense; court need not give willful culpability instruction; jury instructions correct |
| Sufficiency of evidence for conviction | Evidence of intoxication plus medical testimony and records supported finding of substantial/serious bodily injury | Evidence was insufficient to show substantial or serious bodily injury; acquittal warranted | Viewing evidence favorably to the State, sufficient evidence supported conviction |
| Sentencing / mandatory minimum | Court imposed statutory mandatory minimum after considering factors; no manifest injustice found | One-year mandatory minimum was excessive given alleged lack of serious/substantial injury | Court properly imposed the statutory one-year mandatory minimum; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87 (U.S. 1974) (an information is generally sufficient if it tracks the statute)
- State v. Bertram, 708 N.W.2d 913 (N.D. 2006) (information must give defendant notice to prepare a defense)
- State v. Motsko, 261 N.W.2d 860 (N.D. 1977) (historical context rejecting reversals for lack of detail in informations when discovery is available)
- Kartes v. Kartes, 831 N.W.2d 731 (N.D. 2013) (prima facie / preliminary hearing adequacy becomes moot once case is tried)
- State v. Glass, 620 N.W.2d 146 (N.D. 2000) (DUI is a strict liability offense)
- State v. Brown, 771 N.W.2d 267 (N.D. 2009) (explaining vagueness doctrine and two-part test for statutes)