State v. White Bird
2015 ND 41
| N.D. | 2015Background
- Damon White Bird was charged with attempted murder, two counts of felonious restraint, aggravated assault, and tampering with physical evidence for two violent assaults occurring at his apartment within 12–18 hours.
- After appointment of a public defender, the court ordered a competency and criminal-responsibility evaluation; the State Hospital psychologist found White Bird fit to proceed and criminally responsible.
- White Bird repeatedly sought to discharge counsel and represent himself; after multiple hearings warning him of the dangers, the district court allowed pro se representation with standby counsel the day before trial.
- White Bird represented himself at a five-day jury trial; the jury convicted him on all counts. Post-trial, he moved for an evidentiary hearing alleging incompetence to waive counsel; the court denied the motion and sentenced him.
- On appeal White Bird argued (1) he was not competent to waive counsel, (2) the court failed to regulate admission of prejudicial evidence and instruct the jury, and (3) the evidence was insufficient to support convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (White Bird) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competency to waive counsel / right to self-represent | Court correctly found White Bird competent based on hospital evaluations and the court’s observations; warnings were given and standby counsel appointed | White Bird lacked sufficient intellectual and mental capacity (IQ 76, diagnoses) to knowingly, intelligently waive counsel and conduct trial | Court affirmed: district court did not err; evaluation + extensive colloquy and in-trial observations supported competency finding |
| Admission/regulation of evidence and jury instructions | The complained-of evidence was largely offered or invited by White Bird himself while pro se; invited-error doctrine bars appellate relief | The court failed to limit highly prejudicial hearsay, police reports, search-warrant materials, and unedited interview recordings, and failed to instruct the jury on limits | Court affirmed: White Bird invited the admission of much of the evidence by offering it; no reversible error shown |
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Evidence (victim and eyewitness testimony, White Bird’s admissions about hiding evidence and admissions about assaults) supported convictions | Evidence was insufficient due to conflicts and White Bird’s defensive explanations | Court affirmed: viewing evidence in light most favorable to verdict, competent evidence supported convictions |
| Continuing duty to monitor competency under Edwards | Court had continuing responsibility and met it through observations and warnings; could appoint counsel if competency later faltered | White Bird argued the pretrial evaluation didn’t assess ability to self-represent and the court didn’t address that specific issue sufficiently | Court applied Edwards framework and found the district court adequately assessed and monitored competency; no basis to overturn |
Key Cases Cited
- Iowa v. Tovar, 541 U.S. 77 (explaining standards for a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel)
- Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164 (permitting states to require counsel for defendants who lack mental capacity to conduct trial proceedings pro se)
- Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337 (noting courts’ responsibility to preserve trial processes and maintain fair proceedings)
- State v. Dahl, 776 N.W.2d 37 (N.D. 2009) (discussing district court’s role in assessing competency to self-represent under Edwards)
- State v. Garge, 818 N.W.2d 718 (N.D. 2012) (recognizing corollary right to self-representation)
- State v. Romero, 830 N.W.2d 586 (N.D. 2013) (standards for reviewing sufficiency of evidence and jury instructions)