State v. Doornek and City of Grand Forks v. Doornek

North Dakota Supreme Court

State v. Doornek and City of Grand Forks v. Doornek

2017 ND 226, 902 N.W.2d 515, 2017 WL 4159235

CourtNorth Dakota Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 20, 2017

Docket20170020, 20170027

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 ND 226 (State v. Doornek and City of Grand Forks v. Doornek) 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.

Bluebook

State v. Doornek and City of Grand Forks v. Doornek, 2017 ND 226, 902 N.W.2d 515, 2017 WL 4159235 (N.D. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

[¶ 1] Jake Doornek appeals from a criminal judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of one count of theft of property and two counts of assaulting a peace officer. Doornek argues that the district court erred by denying his motion to sever the trial of the theft charge from the trial of the assault charges, a motion he did not renew at the close of evidence. Doornek failed to meet his burden under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b). See State v. Neufeld, 1998 ND 103, ¶ 15, 578 N.W.2d 536 (“Severance is only required when a defendant has made a convincing showing he has both important testimony to give concerning one count and a strong need to refrain from testifying in another.”); see also State v. Tresenriter, 2012 ND 240; ¶ 12, 823 N.W.2d 774 (noting that to “constitute obvious error, the error must be a clear deviation from an applicable legal rule under current law”). Doornek also argues that the district court erred by denying his motion for acquittal. We conclude that sufficient evidence exists in the record to sustain his conviction. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (7).

[¶ 2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J. Jerod E. Tufte Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jon J. Jensen

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

[¶ 1] Jake Doornek appeals from a criminal judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of one count of theft of property and two counts of assaulting a peace officer. Doornek argues that the district court erred by denying his motion to sever the trial of the theft charge from the trial of the assault charges, a motion he did not renew at the close of evidence. Doornek failed to meet his burden under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b). See State v. Neufeld, 1998 ND 103, ¶ 15, 578 N.W.2d 536 (“Severance is only required when a defendant has made a convincing showing he has both important testimony to give concerning one count and a strong need to refrain from testifying in another.”); see also State v. Tresenriter, 2012 ND 240; ¶ 12, 823 N.W.2d 774 (noting that to “constitute obvious error, the error must be a clear deviation from an applicable legal rule under current law”). Doornek also argues that the district court erred by denying his motion for acquittal. We conclude that sufficient evidence exists in the record to sustain his conviction. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (7).

[¶ 2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J. Jerod E. Tufte Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jon J. Jensen

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 ND 226, 902 N.W.2d 515, 2017 WL 4159235, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-doornek-and-city-of-grand-forks-v-doornek-nd-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack