State v. Romero, 830 N.W.2d 586

Romero was convicted by a jury of murder, unlawful possession/manufacture of marijuana, and unlawful possession of cocaine with intent to deliver.
Charges were amended in 2011 to add unlawful possession of cocaine with intent to deliver and tampering with physical evidence.
Romero allegedly shot Bryon Kalis in October 2010 after an encounter involving plans to obtain marijuana; evidence included text threats and alleged presence of cocaine and marijuana.
The district court denied Romero’s request to have the jury view the crime scene but admitted photographs and a distance scale, and denied his Rule 29 motion on two counts while dismissing the tampering with evidence count.
Romero challenged the self-defense instruction as to “great bodily injury” vs. “serious bodily injury,” and argued for a verbatim transcript of jury selection due to indiscernible words; the court conducted jury selection on the record and denied relief on the transcript issue.
The appellate court affirmed on all challenged issues, concluding viewing the scene was not needed, self-defense instructions were adequate as a whole, the Rule 29 denial was supported by substantial evidence, and the transcript issue did not require reversal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jury view of crime scene proper?	Romero: viewing would clarify distances and complete defense.	State: viewing unnecessary due to exhibits and scale drawing.	No abuse of discretion; viewing denied.
Self-defense instruction adequacy?	Romero: change to ‘serious bodily injury’ or define ‘great bodily injury.’	State: pattern instruction adequate; Leidholm allows interchangeability.	Instructions, as a whole, adequately informed the jury.
Sufficiency of evidence for cocaine with intent to deliver?	Romero: no direct possession evidence tying cocaine to him.	State: evidence connected coke to Romero through multiple witnesses and texts.	Evidence sufficient; Rule 29 denial affirmed.
Transcript indiscernible words in jury selection?	Romero: indiscernibles require verbatim transcript/ new trial.	State: no prejudice shown; record sufficient.	No reversible error from transcript issues.

State v. Schliekenmayer, 334 N.W.2d 196 (N.D.1983) (jury view discretion not to view if no useful purpose)
State v. Leidholm, 334 N.W.2d 811 (N.D.1983) (self-defense terms interchangeable; serious bodily injury concept)
State v. Erickstad, 2000 ND 202, 620 N.W.2d 136 (N.D.2000) (instruction sufficiency judged by overall instruction)
State v. Bauer, 2010 ND 109, 783 N.W.2d 21 (N.D.2010) (pattern jury instructions not controlling law; may be imperfect)
State v. Entzi, 2000 ND 148, 615 N.W.2d 145 (N.D.2000) (on-record jury selection; transcript importance but not always dispositive)
State v. Johnson, 2001 ND 184, 636 N.W.2d 391 (N.D.2001) (pattern instructions may contain incorrect statements of law)