930 N.W.2d 645
N.D.2019Background
- On August 19, 2016, the victim was killed while Swanson was present in a Bowman, ND motel room; Swanson was charged, among other counts, with conspiracy to commit murder.
- The indictment alleged conspiracy under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-06-04 to commit murder under § 12.1-16-01(1)(a), which defines murder as intentionally or knowingly causing death.
- Swanson objected to jury instructions that allowed conviction for conspiracy to commit murder based on a mental state of “knowingly” causing death; he proposed instructions requiring intent to cause death.
- The district court instructed the jury that murder could be committed either intentionally or knowingly, using the statutory definition of “knowingly.”
- Swanson appealed, arguing that conspiracy to "knowingly" cause death is non-cognizable because it permits conviction without proof of intent to cause death.
- The Supreme Court reviewed whether (1) conspiracy to commit murder requires intent to cause death under prior caselaw and (2) whether the statutory mental state "knowingly" would allow conviction without that intent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether conspiracy to commit murder requires proof of intent to cause death | State: conspiracy can be based on the underlying murder statute’s mental states (including knowingly) | Swanson: conspiracy requires specific intent to cause death; "knowingly" does not prove that intent | Court: Borner controls—conspiracy to commit murder requires intent to cause death; State did not ask to revisit Borner |
| Whether using the statutory mental state “knowingly” permits a valid conspiracy-to-murder charge | State: "knowingly" is a permissible alternative mental state for murder | Swanson: "knowingly" allows conviction without purpose/intent to kill, so it creates a non-cognizable conspiracy | Court: "Knowingly" (as defined in statute) does not require purpose/intent to cause death; its inclusion permitted conviction without intent and thus rendered the instruction improper |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Borner, 836 N.W.2d 383 (N.D. 2013) (conspiracy to commit murder requires intent to cause death; conspiracy to commit extreme indifference murder is non-cognizable)
- State v. Bearrunner, 921 N.W.2d 894 (N.D. 2019) (statutory interpretation is a question of law; primary purpose is to ascertain legislative intent)