*1 41 Hoy, Atty. Robert G. (argued), Reisenauer, and Keith Asst. State’s Fargo, Murphy, Fargo, Edward J. for defendant v. appellant. DUBS, Michael David WALLE, YANDE Justice. appealed Michael David Dubs from a
Cr. No. 1148. judgment of conviction of the County Cass district robbery, arguing court for that the evidence was insufficient 26, conviction. We affirm. alleges When a appeal defendant the evidence is insufficient to sustain a “ weigh ‘we do not conflicting evidence, judge nor do we the credibility of witnesses; instead, evidence most favorable to the verdict and the reasonable inferences therefrom to see if there is substantial evidence to warrant a ” conviction.’ State v. 362 N.W.2d 410, (N.D.1985), quoting 414 v. State Manke, (N.D.1982). 328 N.W.2d 805 proper standard is founded on the recognition of the distinctive role of the case, trier of fact—in this the trial court— weighing the evidence. This role neces- sarily application includes of inferences and may reasonably subtleties that from the purpose evidence for the ing credibility evaluating the essential Ohnstad, issues of fact. State v. N.W.2d 827 light The shown in that and in early relation to is that morn- 5, 1985, ing July hours of Dubs and two friends, minor, Ronald Huebner and a apartment walked from Dubs’s to a buy cigarettes. convenience store to On Fischer, stopped Howard just workday who had ended his at a bak- ery. While Dubs and the minor continued store, proceeded threatening assaulting rob nunchaku,1 weap- him with a a martial-arts code, pieces 1. A "nunchaku” consists of two round tained in our criminal 04(6). Section 12.1-01- wood, terms, usually eight long By listing six to inches and an its in our criminal diameter, together by dangerous weapons inch in held a chain or code of is not limited to piece rope approximately long. one foot A those items included in the list. See also State Mitchell, (Iowa dangerous weapon App.1985), nunchaku is listed as a 371 N.W.2d 62.1-01-01(1), N.D.C.C., Section but is the court omitted wherein concludes that a nunchaku is dangerous listing weapons dangerous weapon con- under Iowa law. *2 pair to a ed commonly again, referred as him. Dubs asked and Timian chucks,” he “numb which took with him again. time, answered Dubs asked a third apartment. from Fischer was Dubs’s able answered, and Timian point which the directly to flee from the situation and went police, by summoned arrived. Hu- police report to the station to the crime.2 ebner, Dubs, and the minor fled from the rejoined hid, scene After and but were subsequently Huebner Dubs and the minor, they began to walk back to by Dubs’s found the apartment. On the Huebner noticed We that this believe Timian, co-workers,
James one of Fischer’s pursuant opposite considered home on the side of the standard we street, yelled employ, street. across the must Huebner is sufficient to sustain the asking any if Timian had beer. Timian did verdict. While it is true that our law does kept respond walking. not and Huebner person not allow a to be found guilty of replied, Timian again, asked and “No.” robbery merely presence because at the Timian, According to Huebner then crossed robbery [see, e.g., scene of the Zander v. street, the Dubs and with the minor S.J.K., (N.D.1977)], N.W.2d “stringing along” Huebner. As Hu- behind sonable the sup inferences from evidence Timian, approached ebner Huebner with- port the trial court’s conclusion that Dubs’s from drew the nunchaku his vest. Timian culpa actions were sufficient indication of bag carrying set down the he was and bility. argues Dubs that the evidence placed wall building. his back to the of a only present shows that he was and not a swung While the nunchaku participant. argument was made to suggested front of and Timian’s face that court, rejected. the trial The trial ‘give’ bag, Timian him should the Dubs court an considered Dubs stood feet four or five to Timian’s left. crime Although the away The minor distance some from trial court did the not delineate basis of its others, the to facing his back them and the conclusion, inferences that street area. in the Dubs aided Huebner commission of The discussion between Huebner and Ti- the can from offense be drawn Dubs’s loca extended, mian was somewhat with Hueb- during tion the his statement that stating ner several times that Timian here,” get repeated “we should out his ‘give’ bag should the to him. As he talked asking day, attempt for the time of and his Timian, to Huebner withdrew the nunchaku addition, In to replaced from it his vest and three times. to Dubs’s Timian’s beliefs as reasons for Timian, According told Huebner allegedly his conduct are certainly innocent during the discussion he “wanted to appropriate relevant and are for considera leave, coming kept up just about as court, by primarily tion the trial because guy close as the the with numb chucks.”3 actually Timian observed Dubs’s behavior Timian testified that he believed that during and after the inwas by and, position, way his his was position develop reasonable beliefs based presence, a threat. He was also on the more subtle forms of human com request construed Dubs’s to leave as a munication, body language such as caught being concern about and not as a Lastly, tone of voice. record demon concern for Timian’s welfare. Timian placed strates that the court trial substan eventually told that he could have reaching weight tial its conclusion on bag, at which time Huebner took the credibility and demeanor of the bag approached then Timi- witnesses left. Dubs time; Huebner), (including an and him asked Timian answer- Dubs and a matter stated, “Ron, subsequently 2. Huebner was convicted of rob- 3. Dubs testified that he we should Fischer; bing acquit- get the minor were Dubs and out of here.” charge. ted of the which cannot manifested the cold
record us. before
Because the evidence and the reasonable inferences most favorable to the verdict we affirm the WHITE, D. Kevin
ment. *3 Crim. No. 1139.
ERICKSTAD, C.J., and GIERKE and MESCHKE, JJ., concur.
LEVINE, Justice, concurring specially. resolve,
I separately clarify write least, my why own mind at the reasons
we affirm this conviction.
To convict Dubs as an Hu- robbery,
ebner’s the State had to establish
beyond a reasonable doubt that Dubs inten
tionally aided 12.1-03-01(l)(b). In determining
NDCC §
whether there was sufficient evidence to
convict to the evidence guilty
most favorable verdict and the if inferences therefrom to see
there is substantial evidence to warrant a
conviction. State v.
(N.D.1985). Substantial evidence exists
when a rational fact finder could have guilty beyond
found the defendant City
sonable doubt.
v. McMor
row,
Viewing light, the evidence in this we intercede,
find that Dubs did not side Huebner’s while Huebner robbed
Timian; that Timian believed Dubs was threat; and was a following Dubs fled and
hid from the From this evidence presumably trial court inferred that place during remained in scene, leaving
instead of in order to aid
in its by blocking commission Timian’s es-
cape, and that then Dubs bolted order to apprehension
avoid by Al-
though them, I would not have I say
cannot that these inferences are unrea-
sonable or that a rational fact finder could guilty beyond
not have found Dubs a rea- I Riha, sonable doubt. therefore concur in the Richard J. Asst. Bis- marck, result.