State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Alex Kenny Eggleston, Defendant and Appellant
No. 20190214
In the Supreme Court State of North Dakota
Filed 03/19/20
2020 ND 68
Jensen, Chief Justice.
Appeal from the District Court of Williams County, Northwest Judicial District, the Honorable Joshua B. Rustad, Judge.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
Opinion of the Court by Jensen, Chief Justice.
Nathan K. Madden, Williston, ND, for plaintiff and appellee.
Kiara C. Kraus-Parr, Grand Forks, ND, for defendant appellant.
[¶1] Alex Eggleston appeals from the district court‘s amended judgment entered following a jury verdict finding him guilty of murder and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Eggleston argues there was insufficient evidence for the jury to find him guilty of murder. Eggleston also contends his sentence is illegal because
I
[¶2] On July 17, 2017, the State charged Eggleston with the crime of murder, a Class AA felony, in violation of
[¶3] During the trial, the State offered the testimony of a witness who observed Eggleston display a pistol and shortly thereafter discharge the weapon. The witness also testified Eggleston discharged the weapon several additional times as the victim began walking away. An autopsy of the victim revealed there were two gunshot wounds in the victim‘s mid-back, one of which was fatal.
[¶4] At the close of the State‘s case, Eggleston moved for a judgment of acquittal under
[¶5] On June 28, 2018, the district court sentenced Eggleston to life with the
II
[¶6] Eggleston challenges the sufficiency of the evidence offered by the State to support the convictions. First, he asserts the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal by applying the wrong legal standard. Second, he argues the State provided insufficient evidence to allow the jury to find that he did not act in self-defense.
[¶7] Following the close of the prosecution‘s evidence or at the close of all evidence, the court may enter a judgment of acquittal if “the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction.”
[¶8] Eggleston argues the district court applied an improper standard in considering his motion for a judgment of acquittal. Specifically, he asserts the following statement by the court was an incorrect statement of the law: “when ruling on that motion, we must first assume the truth of what -- of the evidence that‘s been presented by the State and determine whether a reasonable person could conclude that the elements have been established beyond a reasonable doubt.” Eggleston contends this is contrary to our case law holding that when considering whether there was sufficient evidence for the conviction the evidence is viewed “in the light most favorable to the prosecution and giving the prosecution the benefit of all inferences reasonably to be drawn in its favor.” State v. Kringstad, 353 N.W.2d 302, 306 (N.D. 1984). He argues the requirement to “assume the truth” of the State‘s evidence could lead to absurd results. He provides the example of the court having to “assume the truth” of testimony from a witness for the State who testifies an event did not occur even though a video offered during the cross-examination of the witness shows the event occurred.
[¶9] On appeal, Eggleston “bears the burden of showing the evidence reveals no reasonable inference of guilt when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict.” State v. Rai, 2019 ND 71, at ¶ 13. In determining whether Eggleston has met his burden this Court “view[s] the evidence and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the verdict to decide whether a reasonable fact finder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Wangstad, 2018 ND 217, ¶ 23, 917 N.W.2d 515 (quoting State v. Carlson, 1997 ND 7, ¶ 51, 559 N.W.2d 802). “When the verdict is attacked and the evidence is legally sufficient to sustain the verdict, we will not disturb the verdict and judgment even though the trial included conflicting evidence and testimony.” State v. Friesz, 2017 ND 177, ¶ 34, 898 N.W.2d 688 (quoting State v. Romero, 2013 ND 77, ¶ 24, 830 N.W.2d 586).
[¶10] Eggleston was observed pulling out a pistol and discharging the weapon. He was observed shooting toward the victim after the victim had turned and started to walk away. The autopsy revealed that one of the two shots striking the victim in the back was a fatal wound. The jury instruction required the jury to find the following essential elements to convict Eggleston of the offense of murder: That on or about July 14, 2017, in Williams County, North Dakota, Eggleston intentionally or knowingly caused the death of the victim, and Eggleston did not act in self-defense. While there may be contradictory facts, applying our standard of review on appeal, we conclude the evidence was legally sufficient to sustain the verdict.
[¶11] Eggleston also contends the evidence is insufficient to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, he was not acting in self-defense. He argues the State‘s witness testimony
III
[¶12] On appeal, Eggleston argues the interplay between
[¶13] Although Eggleston did not raise a challenge to the sentencing in the district court during his sentencing hearing or through a post-sentencing motion under
[¶14] Eggleston was convicted of murder under
2. In the case of an offender who is sentenced to a term of life imprisonment with opportunity for parole under subsection 1 of section 12.1-32-01, the term “sentence imposed” means the remaining life expectancy of the offender on the date of sentencing. The remaining life expectancy of the offender must be calculated on the date of sentencing, computed by reference to a recognized mortality table as established by rule by the supreme court.
[¶15] The recognized mortality table referenced in
[¶16] As part of the sentencing process, the district court referenced a 2017 life expectancy table to compute Eggleston‘s life expectancy. Administrative Rule 51 has not been modified since its effective date of February 9, 2005, and continues to require the court to compute Eggleston‘s remaining life expectancy by using the 2002 life expectancy table. We agree with Eggleston the use of the 2017 life expectancy table was contrary to Rule 51. We remand this case to the district court for recalculation of Eggleston‘s life expectancy consistent with the life expectancy table referenced within Rule 51.
[¶17] Eggleston‘s constitutional challenge to his sentence was not presented to the district court. Generally, “issues
IV
[¶18] The district court did not err in dismissing Eggleston‘s motion for an acquittal because there was sufficient evidence for the jury to convict Eggleston of murder and for the jury to conclude he was not acting in self-defense. We affirm the district court‘s judgment of conviction. The district court referenced an incorrect life table to compute Eggleston‘s remaining life expectancy, we reverse the district court‘s amended judgment, and remand to the district court for a proper computation of Eggleston‘s remaining life expectancy consistent with
[¶19] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.
Jerod E. Tufte
Daniel J. Crothers
Lisa Fair McEvers
Gerald W. VandeWalle