State v. Coleman
This text of 2018 ND 38 (State v. Coleman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering North Dakota Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Filed 2/22/18 by Clerk of Supreme Court
IN THE SUPREME COURT
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
2018 ND 38
State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee
v.
Romez Michael Coleman, Jr., Defendant and Appellant
No. 20170315
Appeal from the District Court of Grand Forks County, Northeast Central Judicial District, the Honorable Lolita G. Hartl Romanick, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Per Curiam.
Haley L. Wamstad, Assistant State’s Attorney, Grand Forks, ND, for plaintiff and appellee; submitted on brief.
Russell J. Myhre, Valley City, ND, for defendant and appellant; submitted on brief.
State v. Coleman
[¶1] Romez Michael Coleman, Jr., appeals from a criminal judgment for aggravated assault—domestic violence. Coleman argues the State presented insufficient evidence to sustain the guilty verdict and the district court erred in allowing testimony about two physical objects that were subject to a stipulation and order restricting their admission into evidence. Sufficient evidence exists to sustain the criminal judgment, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting testimony about the objects. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (4).
[¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.
Daniel J. Crothers
Lisa Fair McEvers
Jon J. Jensen
Jerod E. Tufte
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2018 ND 38, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-coleman-nd-2018.