State v. Vetter, 826 N.W.2d 334

Vetter was convicted of aggravated assault with a dangerous weapon under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-17-02(1).
The jury specially found Vetter inflicted bodily injury with a dangerous weapon during the assault.
Hemphill confronted Vetter after learning he repeatedly drove by his rental property in West Fargo on February 18, 2011.
Vetter drove his 2005 Hummer forward while Hemphill backpedaled; Hemphill fell under the vehicle and was run over by both tires.
Vetter challenged the conviction as to whether a motor vehicle can be a dangerous weapon under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-01-04(6); district court denied post-trial motions.
The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmatively held that a vehicle may be considered a dangerous weapon and that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether vehicle can be a dangerous weapon as a matter of law	Vetter argues vehicle is not a dangerous weapon under § 12.1-01-04(6).	State contends the catch-all allows non-enumerated items like a vehicle to be dangerous weapon based on use.	Vehicle may be a dangerous weapon; statute not limited to enumerated items.
Sufficiency of evidence to prove use of a dangerous weapon	Vetter asserts insufficient evidence that a vehicle was used as a dangerous weapon.	State argues sufficient evidence shows use of vehicle as a dangerous weapon under the circumstances.	Evidence supports the jury’s finding; a rational juror could conclude Vetter used the vehicle as a dangerous weapon.
Interpretation standard for § 12.1-01-04(6) versus sufficiency review	Statutory construction determines per se legality of vehicle as dangerous weapon.	Sufficiency review applies after parsing statute; the issue can be understood as both law and fact.	Court first interprets the statute as a question of law, then applies sufficiency review.

State v. Bauer, 2010 ND 109 (2010) (whether possession indicates readiness to inflict serious injury under § 12.1-17-02(2))
State v. Schweitzer, 510 N.W.2d 612 (N.D. 1994) (issue of fact whether an instrumentality is a dangerous weapon without qualified testimony)
State v. Clinkscales, 536 N.W.2d 661 (N.D. 1995) (whether a BB gun is capable of firing a projectile; issue of fact)
State v. O'Toole, 773 N.W.2d 201 (N.D. 2009) (statutory interpretation prior to sufficiency review)
People v. Goolsby, 279 N.W.2d 867 (Mich. 1938) (vehicle may be used as a dangerous weapon depending on manner of use)
Buchholz v. State, 692 N.W.2d 105 (N.D. 2005) (statutory interpretation principles for criminal statutes)