State v. Romanick
2017 ND 42
| N.D. | 2017Background
- In Feb. 2016 the State filed a criminal complaint charging Ward County Sheriff Steven Kukowski with three class A misdemeanors (two counts of reckless endangerment and one count of a public servant refusing to perform a duty) alleging the conduct occurred “on or about October 6, 2015.”
- The affidavit of probable cause alleged the underlying incident—detainee Dustin Irwin’s arrest, deterioration in custody, transport, and subsequent death—occurred in October 2014 and described conditions (overcrowding, inadequate training, and failure to seek medical care) during that time.
- The State moved, shortly before trial, to amend the complaint to change the year from 2015 to 2014, calling the 2015 date a clerical error.
- The district court denied the motion, reasoning the date was an essential element of the offenses and that allowing amendment would substantially prejudice Kukowski (including the court’s view that alleging care failures after the inmate’s death would not state a crime).
- The State sought a supervisory writ from the North Dakota Supreme Court asking the district court be directed to grant the amendment; the Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction because the case involved an elected public official and public-interest criminal allegations and because other remedies were inadequate.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Kukowski's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred in denying the motion to amend the complaint to change the year from 2015 to 2014 | The date was a clerical mistake; time is not an essential element; amendment does not charge a different offense and does not prejudice Kukowski | The date is an essential element; amendment would change or broaden charges and prejudice defense | Court held date is not an essential element here, the amendment corrects a clerical error, and the district court abused its discretion by denying it |
| Whether supervisory writ review is appropriate | Writ is warranted because the matter involves an elected official, death in custody, and other remedies (appeal, later amendment, civil removal) are inadequate | Argued writ review was not extraordinary and alternative remedies existed (prosecute as charged, renew motion later, pursue civil removal) | Court exercised supervisory jurisdiction due to public interest and inadequacy of alternatives |
| Whether the defective date falls within the statute of limitations and is therefore curable by amendment | The alleged 2014 date is within the two-year statute of limitations for class A misdemeanors filed Feb. 2016, so the error is merely clerical | Contended amendment would effectively change the charged conduct (e.g., alleging failure to provide care after death) | Court held both alleged dates fall within the statute of limitations and the incorrect date was a clerical error, not an omission preventing prosecution |
| Whether district court’s reliance on alleged discovery failures justified denying amendment | State said denial was legal error; amendment should be allowed; discovery issues were not the basis of the court’s ruling | Kukowski pointed to State’s discovery noncompliance as supporting denial | Court noted the district court’s decision did not rest on discovery issues and such reliance would be misplaced |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gammill, 421 F.2d 185 (10th Cir. 1970) (an incorrect or omitted year can render an indictment fatally defective if it prevents charging an offense within the statute of limitations)
- City of West Fargo v. Hawkins, 616 N.W.2d 856 (N.D. 2000) (date in complaint is not required as an element unless time is essential to the offense)
- State v. Schwab, 665 N.W.2d 52 (N.D. 2003) (complaint may be amended before finding or verdict if no new offense is charged and defendant’s substantial rights are not prejudiced)