State v. Vetter, 934 N.W.2d 543

On Nov. 15, 2017, Michelle Vetter struck her 8‑year‑old daughter (B.V.) with a closed fist after the child bumped Vetter’s nose; the child reported stomach pain and photos later showed bruising.
Vetter’s then‑husband witnessed the incident and reported it to law enforcement; the State charged Vetter with child abuse under N.D.C.C. § 14‑09‑22 (which incorporates the definition of "bodily injury" from § 12.1‑01‑04(4)).
Vetter moved to dismiss, arguing the statutory definition of "bodily injury" (which includes "physical pain") is unconstitutionally vague; the district court denied the motion.
Trial was held in August 2018; the jury convicted Vetter of child abuse, and the district court deferred imposition of sentence in January 2019.
On appeal Vetter sought judicial notice of divorce‑case filings entered April and June 2019, renewed her vagueness challenge to the statute, and argued the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction.
The North Dakota Supreme Court denied judicial notice of the post‑trial filings, rejected the vagueness challenge, and held the evidence was sufficient; the judgment was affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Vetter)	Held
Judicial notice of divorce‑case filings	Filings are not adjudicative facts available at trial and are subject to dispute	Court should judicially notice post‑trial divorce filings relevant to credibility/motive	Denied — filings post‑date trial and are reasonably disputable, so not judicially noticed
Vagueness of "bodily injury" (inclusion of "pain")	Statute and definition give adequate guidance and notice when measured by common understanding	"Pain" is too vague to put parents on notice what conduct is proscribed	Rejected — statute is not unconstitutionally vague; definition gives sufficient guidance and notice
Sufficiency of evidence for child abuse conviction	Child’s testimony, husband’s eyewitness account, and bruise photos permit reasonable inference of willful infliction	Evidence insufficient; conviction not supported beyond a reasonable doubt	Affirmed — viewed in favor of verdict, evidence was sufficient to support conviction

State v. Holbach, 763 N.W.2d 761 (N.D. 2009) (articulates vagueness test and common‑understanding standard)
State v. Brown, 771 N.W.2d 267 (N.D. 2009) (explains vagueness inquiry: minimum guidelines and fair notice)
In re Disciplinary Action Against McGuire, 685 N.W.2d 748 (N.D. 2004) (language on adequate warning and administrative boundaries)
Interest of D.D., 916 N.W.2d 765 (N.D. 2018) (uses common‑understanding measure for statutory language)
State v. Hannah, 873 N.W.2d 668 (N.D. 2016) (states that "pain" is a phenomenon of common experience and understanding)
State v. Kinsella, 796 N.W.2d 678 (N.D. 2011) (sets standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
State v. Wanner, 784 N.W.2d 143 (N.D. 2010) (cited for the sufficiency‑of‑evidence review approach)
State v. Truelove, 904 N.W.2d 342 (N.D. 2017) (addresses standard for reviewing sufficiency challenges)