State v. Shick, 2017 ND 134

On May 23, 2015, two Aster Electric employees (Seimears and Volochanskiy) went to Harold Shick’s residence to retrieve company property; Shick pointed a pistol at them and attempted to take truck keys; the employees drove away and reported the incident.
Law enforcement went to Shick’s home; Shick consented to a search of his residence; officers found methamphetamine, drug paraphernalia, and an unspent .380 round in a backpack in his room.
Shick initially consented to a motorcycle search but refused consent for his pickup; officers threatened to tow the pickup for an impound search, then Shick consented to a search at his residence; officers found drug paraphernalia, a bag with white residue, and a lockbox containing a pistol, ammunition, and loaded magazines.
Shick was charged with terrorizing, reckless endangerment, felonious restraint, possession of a firearm by a felon, possession of a controlled substance, and possession of drug paraphernalia; the court later dismissed the firearm-by-a-felon charge and amended the information to remove Volochanskiy’s name.
Pretrial, Shick moved to suppress evidence from the pickup search arguing his consent was coerced by the towing threat; the district court denied suppression, finding the consent voluntary.
At trial Shick moved for judgment of acquittal and a mistrial; the court denied both motions and the jury convicted Shick on five counts; Shick appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether consent to search pickup was voluntary (Fourth Amendment)	Consent was voluntary; evidence admissible	Consent coerced by threat to tow; suppression required	Denial of suppression affirmed; defendant waived appellate review by failing to object at trial
Whether denial of mistrial was an abuse of discretion	No abuse; proceedings fair	Mistrial required due to alleged coerced consent and suppression errors	Denial affirmed; mistrial is extreme and no manifest injustice shown
Sufficiency of evidence / judgment of acquittal under N.D.R.Crim.P. 29	Evidence (Seimears’ testimony and recovered items) sufficient to submit to jury	Complaint naming both victims required proof against both; insufficiency argued	Denial affirmed; court could amend information and evidence sufficient when viewed favorably to verdict
Amendment of information to remove Volochanskiy	Amendment permissible under N.D.R.Crim.P. 7(e) without prejudice	Amendment prejudiced defendant (argued below)	Amendment allowed; no prejudice shown and court did not abuse discretion

State v. Skarsgard, 739 N.W.2d 786 (N.D. 2007) (standard for reviewing mistrial motions and abuse of discretion)
State v. Brewer, 860 N.W.2d 470 (N.D. 2015) (need to renew objections at trial to preserve appellate review)
State v. Romero, 830 N.W.2d 586 (N.D. 2013) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence on motion for judgment of acquittal)
State v. Hansen, 69 P.3d 1052 (Idaho 2003) (consent to search given in lieu of impound/tow can be voluntary)
State v. Carlson, 881 N.W.2d 649 (N.D. 2016) (abuse-of-discretion review for allowing amendments to informations)