State v. Wangstad, 917 N.W.2d 515

On March 18, 2016, police entered a Rodeway Inn room; Wangstad moved, drew a handgun, and fired toward an officer; the bullet passed above the officer and lodged in an adjacent room.
Wangstad admitted firing the gun but testified he did not intend to shoot the officer; he said he wanted the officer to leave the room quickly.
The State charged Wangstad with attempted murder; a jury convicted him.
At trial the State introduced portions of two social-media posts authored by Wangstad as evidence of his state of mind; Wangstad requested the full posts be read, which included statements referencing prior sexual-offense-related facts.
The district court admitted the posts after a Rule 403 balancing and gave a limiting instruction that the posts were to be considered only for state of mind.
On appeal Wangstad argued (1) admission of the posts was improper, (2) jury instructions on attempted murder were defective, and (3) the evidence was insufficient to prove intent; the Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of social-media posts	Posts show Wangstad’s state of mind and motive; probative value outweighs prejudice	Posts were irrelevant or unduly prejudicial under N.D.R.Ev. 403; should be excluded	Court upheld admission after 403 balancing; posts admissible for state of mind
Whether posts were Rule 404(b) prior bad acts evidence	Statements are forward‑looking expressions of intent/state of mind, not prior acts	Posts (and full posts requested by defendant) included statements recounting prior sexual‑offense facts and thus are prior bad acts requiring 404(b) analysis	Portions were state‑of‑mind (Phelps controlling); defendant’s choice to admit full posts that included prior‑act material was not obvious error
Jury instruction on attempted murder mens rea	Instruction conveyed required elements and gist of statute	Instruction ambiguous whether “intentionally” applied to all necessary mens rea (intent to kill)	Not plain or obvious error; instruction adequate despite possible lack of clarity
Sufficiency of evidence (intent)	Evidence (shooting toward officer, social-media posts, trajectory expert) supports a reasonable inference of intent to kill	Expert testimony suggested the shot was fired overhead after officer ducked, undermining intent to kill	Viewing evidence in light most favorable to verdict, a reasonable jury could find intent beyond a reasonable doubt; conviction affirmed

State v. Valgren, 411 N.W.2d 390 (N.D. 1987) (trial court has broad discretion balancing probative value against unfair prejudice)
State v. Phelps, 297 N.W.2d 769 (N.D. 1980) (defendant’s statements showing frame of mind are not Rule 404(b) prior‑acts)
State v. Aabrekke, 800 N.W.2d 284 (N.D. 2011) (distinguishing admission of prior sexual‑contact evidence under Rule 404(b))
State v. Olander, 575 N.W.2d 658 (N.D. 1998) (standards for correcting obvious or plain error on appeal)
State v. Erickstad, 620 N.W.2d 136 (N.D. 2000) (instructions may deviate from statute so long as they convey the gist of the law)