State v. Ratliff
2014 ND 156
| N.D. | 2014Background
- Early-morning home invasion (April 30, 2012): three masked men forced entry into the Joneses’ Grand Forks home, assaulted the homeowners with wooden tire thumpers, bound them with duct tape, threatened them, killed the dog, and stole money, medications, jewelry, and electronics.
- Surveillance footage, eyewitness reports, pawnshop records, and recovered property tied Allen Ratliff, Nathan Ratliff, and Cody Boulduc to the scene and to a stolen red Hyundai Tiburon seen leaving the scene.
- After the robbery the three were observed together, pawned jewelry, stored stolen TVs, and were later arrested with stolen property, masks, gloves, and other items in their vehicle.
- At trial the Joneses could not identify the assailants; surveillance video (admitted without sound) was shown to the jury.
- During deliberations the jury replayed the video and inadvertently heard background audio on a DVD copy (audio was unintelligible and consisted of police-station sounds). Defendants did not object at that time; the court polled jurors, each said the audio did not influence deliberations.
- The jury convicted all three of robbery, burglary, two counts of aggravated assault, theft, and felonious restraint; district court denied motions for new trial and judgment of acquittal. Court of Appeals (Supreme Court of North Dakota) affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether inadvertent audio on DVD during deliberations required a new trial | State: audio was unintelligible background noise, no prejudice shown; defendants stipulated to DVD admission and did not object | Defendants: jury heard extra-evidentiary audio not presented at trial and that could have biased deliberations | Court: No abuse of discretion denying new trial; jurors said audio did not affect verdict and audio was not prejudicial |
| Whether the jury’s exposure to outside evidence during deliberations constituted obvious error | State: error not plain or prejudicial; facts distinguish Lindeman | Boulduc: Lindeman requires new trial when jury receives outside evidence | Court: Lindeman distinguishable (physical contraband vs unintelligible background noise); no obvious error found |
| Whether voir dire comment by excused veniremember required panel dismissal or instruction | State: remaining panel affirmed no preformed opinion; no request/instruction made at trial | Defendants: comment suggested panel bias and required admonition or new panel | Court: Issue not preserved in new-trial motion; not an exceptional case for obvious-error review; no reversal |
| Sufficiency of evidence for aggravated assault and other convictions | State: circumstantial and direct evidence (stolen car, pawned items, witnesses, recovered items) support convictions | Defendants: victims only identified one assailant each; insufficient to convict all three on aggravated-assault counts | Court: Evidence viewed in light most favorable to verdict supports reasonable inference each defendant participated in assaults and other offenses; convictions upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lindeman, 254 N.W. 276 (N.D. 1934) (outside evidence sent to jury during deliberations required new trial where evidence was prejudicial)
- State v. Zajac, 767 N.W.2d 825 (N.D. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion standard for new-trial rulings)
- State v. Doppler, 828 N.W.2d 502 (N.D. 2013) (obvious-error review when no contemporaneous objection)
- State v. Romero, 830 N.W.2d 586 (N.D. 2013) (standard for sufficiency review; view evidence in light most favorable to verdict)
- State v. Noorlun, 705 N.W.2d 819 (N.D. 2005) (circumstantial evidence can sustain conviction if probative enough to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt)