State v. Whitman
838 N.W.2d 401
| N.D. | 2013Background
- Whitman and Cody Borner were charged with two counts of conspiracy to commit murder under N.D.C.C. §§12.1-06-04 and 12.1-16-01(1)(b).
- The State amended the information to require knowingly rather than willfully for conspiracy to commit extreme indifference murder.
- Whitman and Borner were convicted; Borner’s appeal led to a decision that conspiracy to commit extreme indifference murder is not a cognizable offense.
- The court ultimately reverses Whitman’s conviction based on the Borner rule, and notes the possibility of recharging Whitman under a new charging document.
- The court also analyzes Miranda-related suppression issues, concluding Whitman did not unambiguously invoke the right to counsel, leaving the Miranda issue for a subsequent trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is conspiracy to commit extreme indifference murder a cognizable offense under ND law? | Whitman—conspiracy to commit murder is cognizable when proven. | Borner and lower courts—this conspiracy is not a cognizable offense because it requires intent to cause death in extreme indifference cases. | Not cognizable; reversal. |
| May the court notice obvious error to reverse without objection under Borner? | Whitman preserved no such objection; error is not obvious. | Obvious error should be noticed to avoid injustice. | Court may notice obvious error on its own motion and reverse. |
| Did Whitman unambiguously invoke his right to counsel, making Miranda-protected statements inadmissible? | Whitman invoked counsel and statements should be suppressed. | Ambiguous invocations do not require cessation; interrogation continued. | Whitman did not unambiguously invoke; statements admissible (for purposes of this appeal). |
| Does Borner apply to Whitman’s case and require reversal despite trial evidence? | Borner controls; the offense is not cognizable. | Borner applies only if properly raised; not argued by Whitman. | Yes, apply Borner; reversal warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Borner, 2013 ND 141 (ND 2013) (conspiracy to commit extreme indifference murder not a cognizable offense; requires an invalid charge and prejudice shown)
- State v. Huether, 2010 ND 233 (ND 2010) ( Miranda-related standards; invocation of counsel rules)
- City of Fargo v. Thompson, 520 N.W.2d 578 (ND 1994) (standards for reviewing suppression and evidentiary findings)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (custodial interrogation and required procedural safeguards)
- City of Fargo v. Wonder, 651 N.W.2d 665 (ND 2002) (definition of interrogation for Miranda purposes)