State v. Rodriguez, 952 N.W.2d 233

Rodriguez was charged with gross sexual imposition, burglary, terrorizing, interfering with an emergency call, and domestic violence assault for an incident on May 21, 2018.
Five different court‑appointed attorneys had been appointed and each moved to withdraw; at a June 19, 2019 hearing the court allowed Rodriguez to represent himself after he insisted on proceeding pro se.
Trial evidence included apartment surveillance video showing Rodriguez kicking in the door and chasing the victim, the alleged knife, photographs of the victim’s injuries, a taped police statement by the victim describing the attack, and inconsistent in‑court testimony by the victim.
On August 29, 2019, a jury convicted Rodriguez of gross sexual imposition, burglary, terrorizing, and domestic violence assault (acquitted on the interference count).
Rodriguez appealed, arguing (1) his waiver of counsel was not knowing/voluntary, (2) insufficiency of the evidence, and (3) the court erred by not submitting a special verdict finding use of a dangerous weapon for the terrorizing count.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rodriguez knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to counsel	The State: waiver was valid given Rodriguez’s unequivocal request and the court’s colloquy explaining dangers of self‑representation	Rodriguez: his waiver was not knowing/voluntary	Court held waiver was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent after extensive colloquy and Rodriguez’s repeated insistence on proceeding pro se
Whether the convictions are supported by sufficient evidence	The State: sufficient evidence (video, victim statement, physical evidence) supports the verdicts	Rodriguez: evidence was insufficient to sustain guilty verdicts	Court declined to review sufficiency because Rodriguez failed to move for judgment of acquittal at trial and did not show obvious error; issue not addressed on merits
Whether a special verdict/finding was required to establish use of a dangerous weapon for sentencing under the armed‑offender statute	The State: no preserved error; no special verdict requested so statute’s mandatory minimum not implicated on appeal	Rodriguez: absent a special finding, N.D.C.C. § 12.1‑32‑02.1 cannot apply; court should have submitted a special verdict on weapon use	Court held issue was unpreserved; Rodriguez did not object to instructions or request a special verdict and did not argue obvious error on appeal, so court declined to consider it

City of Fargo v. Rockwell, 597 N.W.2d 406 (N.D. 1999) (right to counsel standard of review is de novo)
State v. Yost, 855 N.W.2d 829 (N.D. 2014) (no duty to continually appoint new counsel for a difficult defendant)
State v. Harmon, 575 N.W.2d 635 (N.D. 1997) (conduct can be the functional equivalent of an unequivocal request to proceed pro se)
State v. Dvorak, 604 N.W.2d 445 (N.D. 2000) (two‑step inquiry for waiver: voluntary, then knowing/intelligent)
State v. Poitra, 578 N.W.2d 121 (N.D. 1998) (waiver requires warning about dangers and disadvantages of self‑representation)
State v. Steen, 615 N.W.2d 555 (N.D. 2000) (standard for reversing on sufficiency of evidence)
City of Fargo v. Lunday, 760 N.W.2d 136 (N.D. 2009) (preservation rule: move for acquittal under Rule 29 to preserve sufficiency challenge)
State v. Yineman, 651 N.W.2d 648 (N.D. 2002) (obvious‑error review applicable when acquittal motion is not made)
State v. Smith, 934 N.W.2d 1 (N.D. 2019) (court exercises caution in noticing obvious error and may decline when defendant hasn’t raised it)
State v. Estrada, 830 N.W.2d 617 (N.D. 2013) (failure to object to jury instructions preserves only obvious‑error review)
State v. Sheldon, 312 N.W.2d 367 (N.D. 1981) (armed‑offender statute applies only when weapon possession is an element or the jury makes a special finding)