State v. Soucy, 943 N.W.2d 755

Tara Soucy was charged with two counts of class C felony child neglect for incidents on May 28 and May 29, 2019; Count 1 (May 28) involved two children found wandering unclothed, Count 2 (May 29) involved one child walking unattended on a busy street.
At trial the jury acquitted Soucy on Count 1 and convicted her on Count 2.
Defense counsel attempted at trial to elicit the children’s father’s related conviction and asked the court to take judicial notice of that conviction; the court declined to take notice at that time because no supporting information was offered and suggested the defense could present the evidence later.
On appeal Soucy argued the court erred by refusing to take judicial notice of the father’s conviction; the State defended the court’s evidentiary ruling.
The Supreme Court reviewed the district court’s refusal for abuse of discretion under N.D.R.Ev. 201 and affirmed, finding the defense never supplied the necessary information to compel judicial notice.
The Court also noted a clerical error in the judgment: the statutory citation listed child abuse rather than child neglect (which was recodified in 2015), and remanded for correction of the citation while affirming the conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred by refusing to take judicial notice of the children’s father’s conviction	The court acted properly; defense did not supply the necessary information to require judicial notice	Defense requested judicial notice and contends the conviction was admissible and relevant	No abuse of discretion; court did not have required information and could decline to take notice at that time
Whether the record/judgment contains a correct statutory citation for the conviction	Conviction stands; citation error is clerical and should be corrected as needed	(Not raised on appeal)	Affirmed conviction; remand for clerical correction of the statutory citation

Opp v. Matzke, 559 N.W.2d 837 (N.D. 1997) (discusses appellate review of judicial notice decisions)
State v. Newark, 900 N.W.2d 807 (N.D. 2017) (defines abuse of discretion standard)
Davis v. Killu, 710 N.W.2d 118 (N.D. 2006) (recognizes broad trial-court discretion on evidentiary matters)