Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
23 North Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1977–2025 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Dakota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Pipergreen2 sentences2005R.Crim.P., applies with equal force to Rule 31(c), N.D.R.Crim.P.” Our Rule 31 became effective November 1,1973. [¶ 23] In State v. Piper, this Court traced our current right to a lesser-included-offense instruction not to our criminal code but to our Rules of Criminal Procedure: Although Rule 31(c) of the North Dakota Rules of Criminal Procedure (on the *710 assumption appropriate instructions have been given) permits .the conviction of a defendant on a lesser offense, we note that there is no constitutional right guaranteeing a defendant a jury instruction on a lesser included offense. . 261 1995In order to warrant a lesser included offense instruction, a defendant must meet the two-part test discussed in Piper, 261 N.W.2d at 654 . | 4 | 7 |
State v. Triebgreen2 sentences2025Id. at 658 (emphasis in original). [¶40] The district court found that consistent with our decision in Trieb, a lesser included offense instruction for manslaughter was not appropriate based on the sole allegation of Campbell’s possible intoxication. 1992See Trieb, supra, 315 N.W.2d at 656 . | 4 | 5 |
State v. Wiedrichgreen2 sentences2020See State v. Wiedrich, 460 N.W.2d 680 (N.D. 1990). 2019State v. Wiedrich , 460 N.W.2d 680 , 684 (N.D. 1990). | 3 | 4 |
State v. Langangreen2 sentences2004“A determination that an offense is a lesser included offense does not necessarily require that a lesser included offense instruction be given upon request.” State v. Tweed, 491 N.W.2d 412, 414 (N.D.1992) (quoting State v. Langan, 410 N.W.2d 149, 152 (N.D.1987)). [¶ 17] We recognize the importance of giving instructions on lesser included offenses when the particular facts of the case warrant it. 2004“A determination that an offense is a lesser included offense does not necessarily require that a lesser included offense instruction be given upon request.” State v. Tweed , 491 N.W.2d 412, 414 (N.D. 1992) (quoting State v. Langan , 410 N.W.2d 149, 152 (N.D. 1987)). [¶17] We recognize the importance of giving instructions on lesser included offenses when the particular facts of the case warrant it. | 3 | 3 |
State v. Housergreen2 sentences2005R.Crim.P., applies with equal force to Rule 31(c), N.D.R.Crim.P.” Our Rule 31 became effective November 1,1973. [¶ 23] In State v. Piper, this Court traced our current right to a lesser-included-offense instruction not to our criminal code but to our Rules of Criminal Procedure: Although Rule 31(c) of the North Dakota Rules of Criminal Procedure (on the *710 assumption appropriate instructions have been given) permits .the conviction of a defendant on a lesser offense, we note that there is no constitutional right guaranteeing a defendant a jury instruction on a lesser included offense. . 261 1992See also Keeble v. United States, 412 U.S. 205, 213 , 93 S.Ct. 1993, 1998 , 36 L.Ed.2d 844 (1973); Schad v. Arizona, — U.S. -, -, 111 S.Ct. 2491, 2504-05 , 115 L.Ed.2d 555 (1991); State v. Sheldon, 301 N.W.2d 604 , 608 n. 1 (N.D.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1002 , 101 S.Ct. 1711 , 68 L.Ed.2d 204 (1981); State v. Houser, 261 N.W.2d 382, 384 (N.D.1977); State v. Piper, 261 N.W.2d 650, 653 (N.D.1977). “[A] determination that an offense is a lesser included offense does not necessarily require that a lesser included offense instruction be given upon request.” State v. Langan, 410 N.W.2d 149, 152 | 2 | 5 |
State v. Clinkscalesgreen2 sentences2017“The purpose of this requirement ‘is to avoid a jury conviction on the lesser offense based on sympathy for the defendant or.an attempt to reach a compromise even though the evidence does not support such a conviction.’” Id. (quoting State v. Clinkscales, 536 N.W.2d 661, 664 (N.D. 1995)). [¶20] In Foreid , the defendant, on trial for gross sexual imposition, requested a lesser-included-offense instruction for sexual assault. 2009 ND 41, ¶ 16 , 763 N.W.2d 475 . 2017“The purpose of this requirement ‘is to avoid a jury conviction on the lesser offense based on sympathy for the defendant or.an attempt to reach a compromise even though the evidence does not support such a conviction.’” Id. (quoting State v. Clinkscales, 536 N.W.2d 661, 664 (N.D. 1995)). [¶20] In Foreid , the defendant, on trial for gross sexual imposition, requested a lesser-included-offense instruction for sexual assault. 2009 ND 41, ¶ 16 , 763 N.W.2d 475 . | 2 | 2 |
State v. Tweedgreen2 sentences2004“A determination that an offense is a lesser included offense does not necessarily require that a lesser included offense instruction be given upon request.” State v. Tweed, 491 N.W.2d 412, 414 (N.D.1992) (quoting State v. Langan, 410 N.W.2d 149, 152 (N.D.1987)). [¶ 17] We recognize the importance of giving instructions on lesser included offenses when the particular facts of the case warrant it. 2004“A determination that an offense is a lesser included offense does not necessarily require that a lesser included offense instruction be given upon request.” State v. Tweed , 491 N.W.2d 412, 414 (N.D. 1992) (quoting State v. Langan , 410 N.W.2d 149, 152 (N.D. 1987)). [¶17] We recognize the importance of giving instructions on lesser included offenses when the particular facts of the case warrant it. | 2 | 2 |
Keeble v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2005Keeble v. United States, 412 U.S. 205, 213 , 93 S.Ct. 1993 , 36 L.Ed.2d 844 (1973); State v. Larson, 554 N.W.2d 655, 656 (N.D.1996). [¶ 11] The lesser-included-offense instruction has historically been treated as part of the procedural criminal law as opposed to the substantive criminal law. [¶ 12] Professor LaFave says there are three approaches to determining what constitutes a lesser included offense: (1) the “statutory elements” approach; (2) the “evidentiary” approach; and (3) the “cognate pleadings” approach (similar to the evidentiary). 2005Keeble v. United States, 412 U.S. 205, 213 , 93 S.Ct. 1993 , 36 L.Ed.2d 844 (1973); State v. Larson, 554 N.W.2d 655, 656 (N.D.1996). [¶ 11] The lesser-included-offense instruction has historically been treated as part of the procedural criminal law as opposed to the substantive criminal law. [¶ 12] Professor LaFave says there are three approaches to determining what constitutes a lesser included offense: (1) the “statutory elements” approach; (2) the “evidentiary” approach; and (3) the “cognate pleadings” approach (similar to the evidentiary). | 1 | 2 |
State Farm Insurance Companies v. Seefeldgreen1 sentence2009State v. McDonell, 550 *481 N.W.2d 62, 63 (N.D.1996); Vance, 537 N.W.2d at 548 . [¶ 19] “For a lesser-included-offense instruction, there must be evidence on which a jury could rationally find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is not guilty of the greater offense and to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the lesser.” Keller, 2005 ND 86, ¶ 31 , 695 N.W.2d 703 . | 1 | 1 |
United States v. David Wade Thompsongreen1 sentence2005R.Crim.P., applies with equal force to Rule 31(c), N.D.R.Crim.P.” Our Rule 31 became effective November 1,1973. [¶ 23] In State v. Piper, this Court traced our current right to a lesser-included-offense instruction not to our criminal code but to our Rules of Criminal Procedure: Although Rule 31(c) of the North Dakota Rules of Criminal Procedure (on the *710 assumption appropriate instructions have been given) permits .the conviction of a defendant on a lesser offense, we note that there is no constitutional right guaranteeing a defendant a jury instruction on a lesser included offense. . 261 | 1 | 1 |
State v. Larsongreen2 sentences2005Keeble v. United States, 412 U.S. 205, 213 , 93 S.Ct. 1993 , 36 L.Ed.2d 844 (1973); State v. Larson, 554 N.W.2d 655, 656 (N.D.1996). [¶ 11] The lesser-included-offense instruction has historically been treated as part of the procedural criminal law as opposed to the substantive criminal law. [¶ 12] Professor LaFave says there are three approaches to determining what constitutes a lesser included offense: (1) the “statutory elements” approach; (2) the “evidentiary” approach; and (3) the “cognate pleadings” approach (similar to the evidentiary). 2005Keeble v. United States, 412 U.S. 205, 213 , 93 S.Ct. 1993 , 36 L.Ed.2d 844 (1973); State v. Larson, 554 N.W.2d 655, 656 (N.D.1996). [¶ 11] The lesser-included-offense instruction has historically been treated as part of the procedural criminal law as opposed to the substantive criminal law. [¶ 12] Professor LaFave says there are three approaches to determining what constitutes a lesser included offense: (1) the “statutory elements” approach; (2) the “evidentiary” approach; and (3) the “cognate pleadings” approach (similar to the evidentiary). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Belyeagreen2 sentences2005See, e.g., N.D.R.Crim.P. 31; State v. Belyea, 9 N.D. 353, 354 , 83 N.W. 1, 1 (1900). [¶ 14] As discussed below, the right to a lesser-included-offense instruction requires: first, that the offense be a lesser included offense of the greater; second, that the evidence be such that a jury could rationally find the defendant not guilty of the greater offense and guilty of the lesser; and third, generally, that the instruction be requested. 2 [¶ 15] Historically, North Dakota recognized lesser included offenses under its law of criminal procedure. 2005See, e.g., N.D.R.Crim.P. 31; State v. Belyea, 9 N.D. 353, 354 , 83 N.W. 1, 1 (1900). [¶ 14] As discussed below, the right to a lesser-included-offense instruction requires: first, that the offense be a lesser included offense of the greater; second, that the evidence be such that a jury could rationally find the defendant not guilty of the greater offense and guilty of the lesser; and third, generally, that the instruction be requested. 2 [¶ 15] Historically, North Dakota recognized lesser included offenses under its law of criminal procedure. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Sheppardgreen2 sentences2000See also State v. Sheppard, 270 Mont. 122 , 890 P.2d 754, 758 (1995); Reed v. State, 560 So.2d 203, 207 (Fla.1990) (defense counsel can waive instructions on lesser included offenses to non-capital crimes without a showing that the defendant has knowingly and intelligently joined in the decision). [¶ 11] This case involves circumstances similar to those in Van Alstine . 2000See also State v. Sheppard, 270 Mont. 122 , 890 P.2d 754, 758 (1995); Reed v. State, 560 So.2d 203, 207 (Fla.1990) (defense counsel can waive instructions on lesser included offenses to non-capital crimes without a showing that the defendant has knowingly and intelligently joined in the decision). [¶ 11] This case involves circumstances similar to those in Van Alstine . | 1 | 1 |
Reed v. Stategreen1 sentence2000See also State v. Sheppard, 270 Mont. 122 , 890 P.2d 754, 758 (1995); Reed v. State, 560 So.2d 203, 207 (Fla.1990) (defense counsel can waive instructions on lesser included offenses to non-capital crimes without a showing that the defendant has knowingly and intelligently joined in the decision). [¶ 11] This case involves circumstances similar to those in Van Alstine . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Thielgreen1 sentence1987See State v. Thiel, 411 N.W.2d 66 (N.D.1987). | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Marshall Norman Hicksgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Dakota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Keller
green
2 sentences2017“For a lesser-included-offense instruction, there must be evidence on which a jury could rationally find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is not guilty of the greater offense and to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the lesser.” State v. Foreid, 2009 ND 41, ¶ 19 , 763 N.W.2d 475 (quoting Keller, 2005 ND 86, ¶ 81 , 695 N.W.2d 703 ). 2017“For a lesser-included-offense instruction, there must be evidence on which a jury could rationally find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is not guilty of the greater offense and to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the lesser.” State v. Foreid, 2009 ND 41, ¶ 19 , 763 N.W.2d 475 (quoting Keller, 2005 ND 86, ¶ 81 , 695 N.W.2d 703 ). | 4 | 2009–2023 |
State v. Carlson
green
2 sentences2019State v. Carlson , 1997 ND 7 , ¶ 34, 559 N.W.2d 802 . 2019State v. Carlson , 1997 ND 7 , ¶ 34, 559 N.W.2d 802 . | 3 | 1999–2019 |
State v. Sheldon
green
2 sentences1992See also Keeble v. United States, 412 U.S. 205, 213 , 93 S.Ct. 1993, 1998 , 36 L.Ed.2d 844 (1973); Schad v. Arizona, ___ U.S. ___, ___ - ___, 111 S.Ct. 2491, 2504-05 , 115 L.Ed.2d 555 (1991); State v. Sheldon, 301 N.W.2d 604 , 608 n. 1 (N.D.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1002 , 101 S.Ct. 1711 , 68 L.Ed.2d 204 (1981); State v. Houser, 261 N.W.2d 382, 384 (N.D.1977); State v. Piper, 261 N.W.2d 650, 653 (N.D.1977). "[A] determination that an offense is a lesser included offense does not necessarily require that a lesser included offense instruction be given upon request." State v. Langan, 410 N.W. 1992See also Keeble v. United States, 412 U.S. 205, 213 , 93 S.Ct. 1993, 1998 , 36 L.Ed.2d 844 (1973); Schad v. Arizona, — U.S. -, -, 111 S.Ct. 2491, 2504-05 , 115 L.Ed.2d 555 (1991); State v. Sheldon, 301 N.W.2d 604 , 608 n. 1 (N.D.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1002 , 101 S.Ct. 1711 , 68 L.Ed.2d 204 (1981); State v. Houser, 261 N.W.2d 382, 384 (N.D.1977); State v. Piper, 261 N.W.2d 650, 653 (N.D.1977). “[A] determination that an offense is a lesser included offense does not necessarily require that a lesser included offense instruction be given upon request.” State v. Langan, 410 N.W.2d 149, 152 | 3 | 1982–1992 |
State v. Foreid
green
2 sentences2017“For a lesser-included-offense instruction, there must be evidence on which a jury could rationally find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is not guilty of the greater offense and to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the lesser.” State v. Foreid, 2009 ND 41, ¶ 19 , 763 N.W.2d 475 (quoting Keller, 2005 ND 86, ¶ 81 , 695 N.W.2d 703 ). 2017“For a lesser-included-offense instruction, there must be evidence on which a jury could rationally find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is not guilty of the greater offense and to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the lesser.” State v. Foreid, 2009 ND 41, ¶ 19 , 763 N.W.2d 475 (quoting Keller, 2005 ND 86, ¶ 81 , 695 N.W.2d 703 ). | 2 | 2017–2023 |
State v. McDonell
green
1 sentence2017When Blotske raised the defense of consent, he effectively admitted to the occurrence of a “sexual act.” Consent would be a defense to both offenses, and if the jury believed the victim consented, “they could no more convict on a charge of sexual assault than they could on the charge of gross sexual imposition.” McDonell, 550 N.W.2d at 64 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Vance
green
1 sentence2009State v. McDonell, 550 *481 N.W.2d 62, 63 (N.D.1996); Vance, 537 N.W.2d at 548 . [¶ 19] “For a lesser-included-offense instruction, there must be evidence on which a jury could rationally find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is not guilty of the greater offense and to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the lesser.” Keller, 2005 ND 86, ¶ 31 , 695 N.W.2d 703 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Sparf v. United States
green
2 sentences2005Berra v. United States, supra; Sparf v. United States, supra, 156 U.S. at 63-64 , 15 S.Ct. at 277-278 . 380 U.S. 343, 349-50 , 85 S.Ct. 1004 , 13 L.Ed.2d 882 (1965) (emphasis added). 2005Berra v. United States, supra; Sparf v. United States, supra, 156 U.S. at 63-64 , 15 S.Ct. at 277-278 . 380 U.S. 343, 349-50 , 85 S.Ct. 1004 , 13 L.Ed.2d 882 (1965) (emphasis added). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Berra v. United States
green
2 sentences2005The right to a lesser-included-offense instruction, however, derives from the United States Supreme Court decision in Berra v. United States, 351 U.S. 131 , 76 S.Ct. 685 , 100 L.Ed. 1013 (1956), and that case’s definition of a “lesser included offense” is not necessarily the definition of “included offense” from our criminal code. [¶ 20] In Berra , the United States Supreme Court said, “In a case where some of the elements of the crime charged themselves constitute a lesser crime, the defendant, if the evidence justified it, would no doubt be entitled to an instruction which would permit a fin 2005The right to a lesser-included-offense instruction, however, derives from the United States Supreme Court decision in Berra v. United States, 351 U.S. 131 , 76 S.Ct. 685 , 100 L.Ed. 1013 (1956), and that case’s definition of a “lesser included offense” is not necessarily the definition of “included offense” from our criminal code. [¶ 20] In Berra , the United States Supreme Court said, “In a case where some of the elements of the crime charged themselves constitute a lesser crime, the defendant, if the evidence justified it, would no doubt be entitled to an instruction which would permit a fin | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Sansone v. United States
green
2 sentences2005Berra v. United States, supra; Sparf v. United States, supra, 156 U.S. at 63-64 , 15 S.Ct. at 277-278 . 380 U.S. 343, 349-50 , 85 S.Ct. 1004 , 13 L.Ed.2d 882 (1965) (emphasis added). 2005Berra v. United States, supra; Sparf v. United States, supra, 156 U.S. at 63-64 , 15 S.Ct. at 277-278 . 380 U.S. 343, 349-50 , 85 S.Ct. 1004 , 13 L.Ed.2d 882 (1965) (emphasis added). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Woods
green
2 sentences2005Id. [¶ 16] The historical basis for the right to a lesser-included-offense instruction was eliminated when it was superseded by the North Dakota Rules of Criminal Procedure on November 1, 1973. 2005Id. [¶ 16] The historical basis for the right to a lesser-included-offense instruction was eliminated when it was superseded by the North Dakota Rules of Criminal Procedure on November 1, 1973. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Schad v. Arizona
green
2 sentences1992See also Keeble v. United States, 412 U.S. 205, 213 , 93 S.Ct. 1993, 1998 , 36 L.Ed.2d 844 (1973); Schad v. Arizona, — U.S. -, -, 111 S.Ct. 2491, 2504-05 , 115 L.Ed.2d 555 (1991); State v. Sheldon, 301 N.W.2d 604 , 608 n. 1 (N.D.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1002 , 101 S.Ct. 1711 , 68 L.Ed.2d 204 (1981); State v. Houser, 261 N.W.2d 382, 384 (N.D.1977); State v. Piper, 261 N.W.2d 650, 653 (N.D.1977). “[A] determination that an offense is a lesser included offense does not necessarily require that a lesser included offense instruction be given upon request.” State v. Langan, 410 N.W.2d 149, 152 1992See also Keeble v. United States, 412 U.S. 205, 213 , 93 S.Ct. 1993, 1998 , 36 L.Ed.2d 844 (1973); Schad v. Arizona, — U.S. -, -, 111 S.Ct. 2491, 2504-05 , 115 L.Ed.2d 555 (1991); State v. Sheldon, 301 N.W.2d 604 , 608 n. 1 (N.D.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1002 , 101 S.Ct. 1711 , 68 L.Ed.2d 204 (1981); State v. Houser, 261 N.W.2d 382, 384 (N.D.1977); State v. Piper, 261 N.W.2d 650, 653 (N.D.1977). “[A] determination that an offense is a lesser included offense does not necessarily require that a lesser included offense instruction be given upon request.” State v. Langan, 410 N.W.2d 149, 152 | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Sheldon v. North Dakota
green
2 sentences1992See also Keeble v. United States, 412 U.S. 205, 213 , 93 S.Ct. 1993, 1998 , 36 L.Ed.2d 844 (1973); Schad v. Arizona, — U.S. -, -, 111 S.Ct. 2491, 2504-05 , 115 L.Ed.2d 555 (1991); State v. Sheldon, 301 N.W.2d 604 , 608 n. 1 (N.D.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1002 , 101 S.Ct. 1711 , 68 L.Ed.2d 204 (1981); State v. Houser, 261 N.W.2d 382, 384 (N.D.1977); State v. Piper, 261 N.W.2d 650, 653 (N.D.1977). “[A] determination that an offense is a lesser included offense does not necessarily require that a lesser included offense instruction be given upon request.” State v. Langan, 410 N.W.2d 149, 152 1992See also Keeble v. United States, 412 U.S. 205, 213 , 93 S.Ct. 1993, 1998 , 36 L.Ed.2d 844 (1973); Schad v. Arizona, — U.S. -, -, 111 S.Ct. 2491, 2504-05 , 115 L.Ed.2d 555 (1991); State v. Sheldon, 301 N.W.2d 604 , 608 n. 1 (N.D.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1002 , 101 S.Ct. 1711 , 68 L.Ed.2d 204 (1981); State v. Houser, 261 N.W.2d 382, 384 (N.D.1977); State v. Piper, 261 N.W.2d 650, 653 (N.D.1977). “[A] determination that an offense is a lesser included offense does not necessarily require that a lesser included offense instruction be given upon request.” State v. Langan, 410 N.W.2d 149, 152 | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Beck v. Alabama
green
2 sentences1992On the first issue before this Court, that of the lack of an instruction on the lesser included offense, it should be noted that a defendant does not have a constitutional right to a lesser included offense instruction. “[W]e have never held that a defendant is entitled to a lesser included offense instruction as a matter of due pro-cess_” Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625, 637 , 100 S.Ct. 2382, 2389 , 65 L.Ed.2d 392 (1980). 1992On the first issue before this Court, that of the lack of an instruction on the lesser included offense, it should be noted that a defendant does not have a constitutional right to a lesser included offense instruction. “[W]e have never held that a defendant is entitled to a lesser included offense instruction as a matter of due pro-cess_” Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625, 637 , 100 S.Ct. 2382, 2389 , 65 L.Ed.2d 392 (1980). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
State v. Leidholm
green
2 sentences1990The issue before us is whether our decision in State v. Leidholm, supra, requiring that when an instruction on self-defense is given the court must also instruct on all lesser-included offenses, is controlling in this instance or whether our decision in State v. Frey, 441 N.W.2d 668 (N.D.1989), holding that when a defendant objects to the lesser-included offense instruction there is no error when the court does not instruct as to the lesser-included offenses notwithstanding that the court has also instructed on self-defense is controlling. 1990The issue before us is whether our decision in State v. Leidholm, supra , requiring that when an instruction on self-defense is given the court must also instruct on all lesser-included offenses, is controlling in this instance or whether our decision in State v. Frey, 441 N.W.2d 668 (N.D.1989), holding that when a defendant objects to the lesser-included offense instruction there is no error when the court does not instruct as to the lesser-included offenses notwithstanding that the court has also instructed on self-defense is controlling. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
State v. Frey
green
2 sentences1990The issue before us is whether our decision in State v. Leidholm, supra, requiring that when an instruction on self-defense is given the court must also instruct on all lesser-included offenses, is controlling in this instance or whether our decision in State v. Frey, 441 N.W.2d 668 (N.D.1989), holding that when a defendant objects to the lesser-included offense instruction there is no error when the court does not instruct as to the lesser-included offenses notwithstanding that the court has also instructed on self-defense is controlling. 1990The issue before us is whether our decision in State v. Leidholm, supra , requiring that when an instruction on self-defense is given the court must also instruct on all lesser-included offenses, is controlling in this instance or whether our decision in State v. Frey, 441 N.W.2d 668 (N.D.1989), holding that when a defendant objects to the lesser-included offense instruction there is no error when the court does not instruct as to the lesser-included offenses notwithstanding that the court has also instructed on self-defense is controlling. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Charles Howard v. United States green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Howard v. United States neutral | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| State v. Marti green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| State v. Vincent green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| State v. Strong green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.