10 N.W.3d 563
N.D.2024Background
- Dayne Watts was involved in an altercation with his girlfriend, Leah Redeagle, with whom he lived along with her infant child, in April 2023.
- Watts was charged with multiple offenses: domestic violence (acquitted), terrorizing, felonious restraint, child neglect, simple assault on emergency personnel, contact by bodily fluids, preventing arrest, and criminal mischief.
- At trial, both Watts and Redeagle testified, as did law enforcement and medical personnel; the jury found Watts guilty on all but the domestic violence charge.
- Watts appealed, challenging the jury instructions on "family or household member" for child neglect, the sufficiency of evidence for child neglect, and claimed prosecutorial misconduct for comments on his post-arrest silence.
- The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the convictions, but remanded for the correction of a clerical error mistakenly noting guilty pleas instead of guilty verdicts after trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Definition of "family or household member" in jury instructions | Definition used was legally sufficient | Definition was too broad; invoked the domestic violence statute | No obvious error; instructions proper |
| Sufficiency of evidence for child neglect | Evidence supported Watts was responsible for the child | Watts was not the parent/custodian and not responsible | Sufficient evidence; conviction upheld |
| Prosecutorial misconduct (post-arrest silence comments) | No improper comment; statements were pre-arrest | Comments on post-arrest (Miranda) silence were improper | No plain error; no misconduct shown |
| Clerical error in judgment | Judgment should reflect guilty after trial | Correction not disputed | Remanded for clerical correction |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hartson, 6 N.W.3d 639 (N.D. 2024) (appellate review of unpreserved jury instruction errors is limited to obvious error)
- State v. Haney, 998 N.W.2d 817 (N.D. 2023) (standard for sufficiency of evidence on appeal)
- State v. Gaede, 736 N.W.2d 418 (N.D. 2007) (improper prosecutorial comment on post-arrest silence is constitutional error)
- State v. Samaniego, 970 N.W.2d 222 (N.D. 2022) (requirement for briefing and showing of obvious error on prosecutorial misconduct)