State v. Schaf, 989 N.W.2d 473

Background

Brian Schaf was charged with gross sexual imposition (N.D.C.C. § 12.1-20-03(1)(c)) and disorderly conduct after allegations he entered a bed with two sleeping minors and touched/penetrated one victim and touched the other during a night of drinking.
Schaf sought to present expert testimony (Dr. Michel A. Cramer Bornemann) that he experienced an "Alcoholic Blackout with a Dissociated State," arguing it would negate the requisite mental state.
The district court excluded the expert testimony, finding Bornemann unqualified to opine on alcohol-related disorders (and alternatively citing hearsay and lack of helpfulness).
Schaf requested a jury instruction on sexual assault as a lesser included offense of gross sexual imposition; the court denied the request.
The jury was instructed that voluntary intoxication could only be considered for the element of whether Schaf knew or had reasonable cause to believe the victim was unaware (element 4 of GSI); Schaf did not object to the instruction at trial.
Schaf was convicted on both counts; he appealed challenging the expert exclusion, the denial of the lesser-included instruction, and the intoxication instruction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of expert testimony on "Alcoholic Blackout with a Dissociated State"	Exclusion proper because the proposed expert lacked qualifications for alcohol-related diagnoses (and relied on inadmissible hearsay / would not assist jury).	Expert would explain blackout/dissociation and negate required mental state for GSI.	Affirmed exclusion: court did not abuse discretion — Bornemann was not qualified to opine on alcohol-related disorders.
Lesser-included instruction: sexual assault as lesser to gross sexual imposition	Sexual assault not a proper lesser here because elements differ; a defendant could commit GSI without committing sexual assault.	Sexual assault is necessarily included and jury should be allowed to convict of lesser offense if supported by evidence.	Denied: sexual assault not a lesser-included offense under the facts; the knowledge elements are incompatible and evidence did not permit rational jury to convict only of sexual assault.
Jury instruction limiting consideration of voluntary intoxication to whether defendant knew or had reasonable cause to believe victim was unaware	Limiting intoxication to that element is correct because gross sexual imposition is a general-intent crime and intoxication is irrelevant to general intent except where statute requires knowledge about victim's awareness.	Intoxication could negate willfulness/voluntary engagement in the sexual act and thus should be considered for other elements.	No plain error: instruction proper; intoxication irrelevant to general-intent elements and could be considered only for the knowledge/awareness element.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Vickerman, 981 N.W.2d 881 (ND 2022) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
Anderson v. A.P.I. Co. of Minn., 559 N.W.2d 204 (ND 1997) (trial court decides expert witness qualifications)
State v. Hunter, 914 N.W.2d 527 (ND 2018) (expert must have some degree of expertise in field)
State v. Keller, 695 N.W.2d 703 (ND 2005) (lesser-included framework: impossibility of committing greater without lesser)
State v. Foreid, 763 N.W.2d 475 (ND 2009) (lesser-included: jury must rationally be able to acquit greater and convict lesser)
State v. Blotske, 899 N.W.2d 661 (ND 2017) (framework for lesser-included instructions)
State v. Gaddie, 971 N.W.2d 811 (ND 2022) (recognizing circumstances where sexual contact may be lesser to sexual act)
State v. Erickstad, 620 N.W.2d 136 (ND 2000) (voluntary intoxication irrelevant to general-intent crimes)
State v. Lafromboise, 959 N.W.2d 596 (ND 2021) (appellate courts may affirm correct result despite erroneous trial reasoning)