district court committed obvious error in North Dakota

2023Smith’s substantial rights were affected, and the district court committed obvious error. [¶18] We have held, “Sustaining a conviction based on jury instructions that did not require findings on every essential element of the charged crime 6 violated due process.” Landrus, 2022 ND 107, ¶ 13 .

2023Smith’s substantial rights were affected, and the district court committed obvious error. [¶18] We have held, “Sustaining a conviction based on jury instructions that did not require findings on every essential element of the charged crime 6 violated due process.” Landrus, 2022 ND 107, ¶ 13 .

2020State v. Yineman, 2002 ND 145, ¶ 21 , 651 N.W.2d 648 .

2020State v. Yineman, 2002 ND 145, ¶ 21 , 651 N.W.2d 648 .

2019Kalmio v. State , 2018 ND 182 , ¶ 14, 915 N.W.2d 655 .

2019Kalmio v. State , 2018 ND 182 , ¶ 14, 915 N.W.2d 655 .

2012McKinney, 518 N.W.2d at 701 . [¶ 10] From reading the trial transcript, it is reasonably clear that the defense attorney’s use of “people like that” was a reference to the use of convicted criminals and liars as confidential informants.

2012McKinney , 518 N.W.2d at 701 . [¶10] From reading the trial transcript, it is reasonably clear that the defense attorney’s use of “people like that” was a reference to the use of convicted criminals and liars as confidential informants.

2026He contends that the introduction of this evidence violated evidentiary principles established by the United States Supreme Court in Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997).

2025III [¶6] Woodman argues the district court committed obvious error by not including in the final jury instructions the essential element that the crimes occurred in the State of North Dakota. [¶7] “The district court must instruct the jury on the law; however, the parties must request and object to specific jury instructions.” State v. Hartson, 2024 ND 78, ¶ 19 , 6 N.W.3d 639 (quoting State v. Jacob, 2006 ND 246, ¶ 14 , 724 N.W.2d 118 ). “[A] party who objects to an instruction . . . must do so on the record, stating distinctly the matter objected to and the grounds[.]” N.D.R.Crim.P. 30(c)(1).

2025III [¶6] Woodman argues the district court committed obvious error by not including in the final jury instructions the essential element that the crimes occurred in the State of North Dakota. [¶7] “The district court must instruct the jury on the law; however, the parties must request and object to specific jury instructions.” State v. Hartson, 2024 ND 78, ¶ 19 , 6 N.W.3d 639 (quoting State v. Jacob, 2006 ND 246, ¶ 14 , 724 N.W.2d 118 ). “[A] party who objects to an instruction . . . must do so on the record, stating distinctly the matter objected to and the grounds[.]” N.D.R.Crim.P. 30(c)(1).

2025III [¶6] Woodman argues the district court committed obvious error by not including in the final jury instructions the essential element that the crimes occurred in the State of North Dakota. [¶7] “The district court must instruct the jury on the law; however, the parties must request and object to specific jury instructions.” State v. Hartson, 2024 ND 78, ¶ 19 , 6 N.W.3d 639 (quoting State v. Jacob, 2006 ND 246, ¶ 14 , 724 N.W.2d 118 ). “[A] party who objects to an instruction . . . must do so on the record, stating distinctly the matter objected to and the grounds[.]” N.D.R.Crim.P. 30(c)(1).

2025V [¶19] Woodman argues the district court committed obvious error by relying on an impermissible factor, specifically a pending criminal charge, to decide the severity of the sentence. [¶20] “This Court’s review of a sentence is generally confined to whether the district court acted within the statutory sentencing limits or substantially relied on an impermissible factor.” State v. Aune, 2021 ND 7, ¶ 10 , 953 N.W.2d 601 .

2025V [¶19] Woodman argues the district court committed obvious error by relying on an impermissible factor, specifically a pending criminal charge, to decide the severity of the sentence. [¶20] “This Court’s review of a sentence is generally confined to whether the district court acted within the statutory sentencing limits or substantially relied on an impermissible factor.” State v. Aune, 2021 ND 7, ¶ 10 , 953 N.W.2d 601 .

2024See State v. Hansford, 2019 ND 52, ¶ 29 , 923 N.W.2d 113 (“We only decide issues that have been thoroughly briefed and argued.”); see also State v. Pederson, 2024 ND 79, ¶ 18 , 6 N.W.3d 619 (declining to consider whether the district court committed obvious error when appellant did not argue the court committed obvious error); State v. Thomas, 2022 ND 126, ¶¶ 19-20 , 975 N.W.2d 562 (not addressing obvious error because appellant did not argue it).

2024See State v. Hansford, 2019 ND 52, ¶ 29 , 923 N.W.2d 113 (“We only decide issues that have been thoroughly briefed and argued.”); see also State v. Pederson, 2024 ND 79, ¶ 18 , 6 N.W.3d 619 (declining to consider whether the district court committed obvious error when appellant did not argue the court committed obvious error); State v. Thomas, 2022 ND 126, ¶¶ 19-20 , 975 N.W.2d 562 (not addressing obvious error because appellant did not argue it).

2022We agree. [¶8] “Jury instructions must correctly and adequately inform the jury of the applicable law[.]” Pemberton, 2019 ND 157, ¶ 21 .

2022Pemberton, 2019 ND 157, ¶ 9 .

2020“The right of appeal in this state is purely statutory and is a jurisdictional matter which we will consider sua sponte.” Jassek v. North Dakota Workforce Safety & Ins., 2013 ND 69, ¶ 6 , 830 N.W.2d 582 .

2020“The right of appeal in this state is purely statutory and is a jurisdictional matter which we will consider sua sponte.” Jassek v. North Dakota Workforce Safety & Ins., 2013 ND 69, ¶ 6 , 830 N.W.2d 582 .

2019III [¶11] Glen Baltrusch argues the district court committed obvious error by failing to dismiss counts 2, 3, and 4 because the State’s use of multiple counts violated his double jeopardy right to be free from multiple punishments for the same offense. [¶12] In State v. Hoehn, 2019 ND 222, ¶ 20 , 932 N.W.2d 553 , we explained: “Issues not raised in the district court will not be addressed for the first time on appeal, unless the alleged error rises to the level of obvious error affecting substantial rights under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b).” [State v.] Murphy, 2014 ND 202, ¶ 6 , 855 N.W.2d 647 ; State

2019III [¶11] Glen Baltrusch argues the district court committed obvious error by failing to dismiss counts 2, 3, and 4 because the State’s use of multiple counts violated his double jeopardy right to be free from multiple punishments for the same offense. [¶12] In State v. Hoehn, 2019 ND 222, ¶ 20 , 932 N.W.2d 553 , we explained: “Issues not raised in the district court will not be addressed for the first time on appeal, unless the alleged error rises to the level of obvious error affecting substantial rights under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b).” [State v.] Murphy, 2014 ND 202, ¶ 6 , 855 N.W.2d 647 ; State

2019III [¶11] Glen Baltrusch argues the district court committed obvious error by failing to dismiss counts 2, 3, and 4 because the State’s use of multiple counts violated his double jeopardy right to be free from multiple punishments for the same offense. [¶12] In State v. Hoehn, 2019 ND 222, ¶ 20 , 932 N.W.2d 553 , we explained: “Issues not raised in the district court will not be addressed for the first time on appeal, unless the alleged error rises to the level of obvious error affecting substantial rights under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b).” [State v.] Murphy, 2014 ND 202, ¶ 6 , 855 N.W.2d 647 ; State

2019III [¶11] Glen Baltrusch argues the district court committed obvious error by failing to dismiss counts 2, 3, and 4 because the State’s use of multiple counts violated his double jeopardy right to be free from multiple punishments for the same offense. [¶12] In State v. Hoehn, 2019 ND 222, ¶ 20 , 932 N.W.2d 553 , we explained: “Issues not raised in the district court will not be addressed for the first time on appeal, unless the alleged error rises to the level of obvious error affecting substantial rights under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b).” [State v.] Murphy, 2014 ND 202, ¶ 6 , 855 N.W.2d 647 ; State

2019III [¶11] Glen Baltrusch argues the district court committed obvious error by failing to dismiss counts 2, 3, and 4 because the State’s use of multiple counts violated his double jeopardy right to be free from multiple punishments for the same offense. [¶12] In State v. Hoehn, 2019 ND 222, ¶ 20 , 932 N.W.2d 553 , we explained: “Issues not raised in the district court will not be addressed for the first time on appeal, unless the alleged error rises to the level of obvious error affecting substantial rights under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b).” [State v.] Murphy, 2014 ND 202, ¶ 6 , 855 N.W.2d 647 ; State

2019III [¶11] Glen Baltrusch argues the district court committed obvious error by failing to dismiss counts 2, 3, and 4 because the State’s use of multiple counts violated his double jeopardy right to be free from multiple punishments for the same offense. [¶12] In State v. Hoehn, 2019 ND 222, ¶ 20 , 932 N.W.2d 553 , we explained: “Issues not raised in the district court will not be addressed for the first time on appeal, unless the alleged error rises to the level of obvious error affecting substantial rights under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b).” [State v.] Murphy, 2014 ND 202, ¶ 6 , 855 N.W.2d 647 ; State

2019III [¶11] Glen Baltrusch argues the district court committed obvious error by failing to dismiss counts 2, 3, and 4 because the State’s use of multiple counts violated his double jeopardy right to be free from multiple punishments for the same offense. [¶12] In State v. Hoehn, 2019 ND 222, ¶ 20 , 932 N.W.2d 553 , we explained: “Issues not raised in the district court will not be addressed for the first time on appeal, unless the alleged error rises to the level of obvious error affecting substantial rights under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b).” [State v.] Murphy, 2014 ND 202, ¶ 6 , 855 N.W.2d 647 ; State

2019III [¶11] Glen Baltrusch argues the district court committed obvious error by failing to dismiss counts 2, 3, and 4 because the State’s use of multiple counts violated his double jeopardy right to be free from multiple punishments for the same offense. [¶12] In State v. Hoehn, 2019 ND 222, ¶ 20 , 932 N.W.2d 553 , we explained: “Issues not raised in the district court will not be addressed for the first time on appeal, unless the alleged error rises to the level of obvious error affecting substantial rights under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b).” [State v.] Murphy, 2014 ND 202, ¶ 6 , 855 N.W.2d 647 ; State

2015State v. Wardner, 2006 ND 256, ¶ 27 , 725 N.W.2d 215 . [¶ 6] Glaser argues on appeal the definition for “sexually predatory conduct” found in N.D.C.C. § 25-03.3-01(9), the state’s civil commitment law, is controlling over the definition of “predatory” in N.D.C.C. § 12.1 — 32—15(l)(d), the state’s sex offender registration law.

2015State v. Wardner, 2006 ND 256, ¶ 27 , 725 N.W.2d 215 . [¶ 6] Glaser argues on appeal the definition for “sexually predatory conduct” found in N.D.C.C. § 25-03.3-01(9), the state’s civil commitment law, is controlling over the definition of “predatory” in N.D.C.C. § 12.1 — 32—15(l)(d), the state’s sex offender registration law.

2015“To establish obvious error, the defendant must show: (1) error; (2) that is plain; and (3) affects substantial rights.” State v. Demarais, 2009 ND 143, ¶ 17 , 770 N.W.2d 246 .

2015“To establish obvious error, the defendant must show: (1) error; (2) that is plain; and (3) affects substantial rights.” State v. Demarais, 2009 ND 143, ¶ 17 , 770 N.W.2d 246 .

2014This Court has stated, “although a motion for new trial is not necessary for appellate review, when a new trial is sought, the party making the motion is limited on appeal to the grounds presented to the trial court in the motion for a new trial.” State v. Zajac , 2009 ND 119, ¶ 8 , 767 N.W.2d 825 . [¶25] The defendants contend, however, the district court committed obvious error when it failed to instruct the jury appropriately or dismiss the entire jury panel following the statements made by the excused juror.

2014This Court has stated, “although a motion for new trial is not necessary for appellate review, when a new trial is sought, the party making the motion is limited on appeal to the grounds presented to the trial court in the motion for a new trial.” State v. Zajac , 2009 ND 119, ¶ 8 , 767 N.W.2d 825 . [¶25] The defendants contend, however, the district court committed obvious error when it failed to instruct the jury appropriately or dismiss the entire jury panel following the statements made by the excused juror.

2006Id. (citing State v. Clark, 2004 ND 85, ¶ 6 , 678 N.W.2d 765 ). [¶ 8] From our review of the evidentiary record, we cannot say the district court committed obvious error by failing to include a jury instruction for self-defense.

2006Id. (citing State v. Clark, 2004 ND 85, ¶ 6 , 678 N.W.2d 765 ). [¶ 8] From our review of the evi-dentiary record, we cannot say the district court committed obvious error by failing to include a jury instruction for self-defense.

2006State v. Weaver, 2002 ND 4, ¶ 16 , 638 N.W.2d 30 . “[A] party who objects to an instruction or the failure to give an instruction must do so on the record, stating distinctly the matter objected to and the grounds of the objection.” N.D.R.Crim.P 30(c)(1).

2006Id. (citing State v. Clark, 2004 ND 85, ¶ 6 , 678 N.W.2d 765 ). [¶ 8] From our review of the evi-dentiary record, we cannot say the district court committed obvious error by failing to include a jury instruction for self-defense.

2006Id. (citing State v. Clark, 2004 ND 85, ¶ 6 , 678 N.W.2d 765 ). [¶ 8] From our review of the evi-dentiary record, we cannot say the district court committed obvious error by failing to include a jury instruction for self-defense.

2006State v. Weaver, 2002 ND 4, ¶ 16 , 638 N.W.2d 30 . “[A] party who objects to an instruction or the failure to give an instruction must do so on the record, stating distinctly the matter objected to and the grounds of the objection.” N.D.R.Crim.P 30(c)(1).