State v. Hebert

North Dakota Supreme Court

State v. Hebert

2018 ND 252, 920 N.W.2d 306

CourtNorth Dakota Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 6, 2018

Docket20180171

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 2018 ND 252 (State v. Hebert) 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. Hebert, 2018 ND 252, 920 N.W.2d 306 (N.D. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

[¶ 1] Mark Hebert appeals from a criminal judgment convicting him of tampering or damaging a public service. The district court found Hebert's conduct, by standing on or near railroad tracks, amounted to tampering with a public service. Hebert argues the district court misinterpreted the law and the conduct alleged could not have supported a conviction for tampering or damaging a public service. We agree, concluding State v. Jessee , 2018 ND 241 , 919 N.W.2d 335 , is dispositive of this appeal. We summarily reverse the district court's judgment under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(b), concluding the evidence did not establish Hebert's presence on or near the tracks constituted tampering with tangible property. See Jessee , at ¶ 13 (tampering under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-21-06(1)(a) requires a change, alteration, or harmful conduct towards the tangible property of another).

[¶ 2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Lisa Fair McEvers

Daniel J. Crothers

Jerod E. Tufte

Jon J. Jensen

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

Per Curiam.

[¶ 1] Mark Hebert appeals from a criminal judgment convicting him of tampering or damaging a public service. The district court found Hebert's conduct, by standing on or near railroad tracks, amounted to tampering with a public service. Hebert argues the district court misinterpreted the law and the conduct alleged could not have supported a conviction for tampering or damaging a public service. We agree, concluding State v. Jessee , 2018 ND 241 , 919 N.W.2d 335 , is dispositive of this appeal. We summarily reverse the district court's judgment under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(b), concluding the evidence did not establish Hebert's presence on or near the tracks constituted tampering with tangible property. See Jessee , at ¶ 13 (tampering under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-21-06(1)(a) requires a change, alteration, or harmful conduct towards the tangible property of another).

[¶ 2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Lisa Fair McEvers

Daniel J. Crothers

Jerod E. Tufte

Jon J. Jensen

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2018 ND 252, 920 N.W.2d 306, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hebert-nd-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack