State v. Samshal
2013 ND 188
| N.D. | 2013Background
- Samshal shot a rifle inside his Grand Forks apartment toward his roommate Franco, risking others in the building.
- Information charged reckless endangerment; later amended to include attempted murder.
- Trial: Samshal claimed self-defense and defense of premises; he sought to introduce Franco’s threatening statements.
- The district court excluded Franco’s statements as hearsay, though Samshal argued they showed state of mind, not truth.
- Jury instructions on self-defense were given, but full defense of premises and limits on force were not.
- Conviction for reckless endangerment reversed and remanded for new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether excluding Franco's statements was error | Samshal argues statements show state of mind and defense relevance. | State argues statements are hearsay if offered for truth. | Exclusion was error; statements were admissible to show state of mind. |
| Whether defense of premises instruction was required | Evidence supported defense; should be given as non-absolute truth defense. | No trespass; Franco cotenant; defense not applicable. | On remand, district court not required to give again if same evidence. |
| Whether the requested limits on use of deadly force should be instructed | Entire limits instruction needed to resolve self-defense scope. | Only non-deadly force applicable under evidence. | Court should give full deadly force instruction if issue arises again. |
| Whether evidentiary error affected substantial rights | State of mind evidence was material to defense and not harmless. | Errors were harmless given other testimony. | Error not harmless; reversal required. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hart, 569 N.W.2d 451 (ND 1997) (defendant testimony about victim statements not hearsay when showing state of mind)
- State v. Bernstein, 697 N.W.2d 371 (ND App 2005) (statements not offered for truth—relevance to defense)
- State v. Wacht, 833 N.W.2d 455 (ND 2013) (abuses discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- State v. Starke, 800 N.W.2d 705 (ND 2011) (jury instructions must fair inform law; defense warranted if evidence supports it)
- State v. Hare, 575 N.W.2d 828 (Minn. 1998) (defense of premises not available against cohabitant trespasser)