State v. Heywood
This text of 2022 ND 74 (State v. Heywood) 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 IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF SUPREME COURT APRIL 14, 2022 STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
2022 ND 74
State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Paxton Benjamin Heywood, Defendant and Appellant
No. 20210259
Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Pamela A. Nesvig, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Per Curiam.
Anna A. Argenti, Assistant State’s Attorney, Bismarck, N.D., for plaintiff and appellee; submitted on brief.
Joshua L. Weatherspoon and Aaron D. Pulanco, Bismarck, N.D., for defendant and appellant; submitted on brief. State v. Heywood No. 20210259
[¶1] Paxton Heywood appeals from a criminal judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of gross sexual imposition. Heywood argues the district court erred by granting the State’s motion to amend the information, and the jury verdict was not supported by sufficient evidence. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude substantial evidence exists that could allow a jury to draw a reasonable inference in favor of conviction. We also conclude the court did not abuse its discretion by granting the State’s motion to amend the information. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (4).
[¶2] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. Gerald W. VandeWalle Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2022 ND 74, 973 N.W.2d 1, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-heywood-nd-2022.