State v. Watkins
2017 ND 165
| N.D. | 2017Background
- Watkins was tried for robbery (class B felony) after a masked man demanded money from a hotel night auditor who thought he saw a gun wrapped in a bag.
- The statute elevates robbery to class B if the robber "possesses or pretends to possess a firearm"; a four-year mandatory minimum applies when possession of a firearm is charged and found.
- The prosecutor suggested a special jury verdict question on whether Watkins possessed a firearm; the court gave a preliminary instruction including the element "possessed or pretended to possess," but ultimately omitted a separate verdict question.
- Defense counsel explicitly agreed (as trial strategy) to leave the special verdict question off the form and later explained that omission was strategic to avoid a jury finding enabling the mandatory minimum.
- The jury convicted Watkins; the court nonetheless imposed the four-year mandatory minimum. Watkins appealed, arguing the jury never specifically found he possessed (as opposed to pretended to possess) a firearm, which Alleyne/Apprendi require for mandatory minimums.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the jury was required to make a specific finding that Watkins possessed a firearm before the mandatory minimum could be imposed | State: statutory and instruction language made possession an element of the offense, so no separate verdict question was necessary | Watkins: jury could have convicted on "pretended to possess," which does not satisfy the mandatory-minimum possession requirement; a special finding was required | Court: Failure to submit a special verdict question was error on the merits, but Watkins waived the error by inviting it through counsel's strategic agreement to omit the question, so he cannot obtain reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (facts increasing punishment beyond statutory maximum must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) (facts that trigger a mandatory minimum must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt)
- State v. Clinkscales, 536 N.W.2d 661 (N.D. 1995) (use of a toy or unloaded weapon during robbery can support aggravated penalty based on victim fear)
- Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S. 212 (2006) (Apprendi-type errors are not structural and may be subject to waiver/invited-error doctrines)