State v. Hultberg

2022 ND 78, 973 N.W.2d 4
CourtNorth Dakota Supreme Court
DecidedApril 14, 2022
Docket20210301
StatusPublished

This text of 2022 ND 78 (State v. Hultberg) 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. Hultberg, 2022 ND 78, 973 N.W.2d 4 (N.D. 2022).

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 78

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Maxwell Dean Hultberg, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20210301

Appeal from the District Court of Morton County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Cynthia M. Feland, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Allen M. Koppy, State’s Attorney, Mandan, ND, for plaintiff and appellee.

Benjamin C. Pulkrabek, Mandan, ND, for defendant and appellant. State v. Hultberg No. 20210301

[¶1] Maxwell Hultberg appealed from a criminal judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of indecent exposure. Hultberg argues the district court erred by giving the jury a general verdict form because it allowed the jury to find him guilty without agreeing on the method of committing the offense.

[¶2] Hultberg did not preserve the issue for appeal and the alleged error will only be reviewed for obvious error. See State v. Rodriguez, 2020 ND 261, ¶ 15, 952 N.W.2d 233 (holding alleged error with the verdict form was not preserved for appeal and would only be reviewed for obvious error when the defendant failed to object to the jury instructions and did not request a special verdict form). To establish an obvious error, the appellant must show: “(1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights.” State v. Evanson, 2021 ND 4, ¶ 11, 953 N.W.2d 607 (citing State v. Doppler, 2013 ND 54, ¶ 14, 828 N.W.2d 502). The jury was instructed that they must unanimously agree as to the method of commission of the offense. We presume the jury followed the district court’s instructions. See Steinbach v. State, 2015 ND 34, ¶ 35, 859 N.W.2d 1 (stating the jury is presumed to follow a court’s instructions).

[¶3] We conclude Hultberg failed to establish that an error occurred. The jury instructions informed the jury that they had to unanimously agree on at least one method of commission of the offense and the jury was required to find Hultberg not guilty if the jurors did not all agree on one method. State v. Gaddie, 2022 ND 44, ¶¶ 10-11. When the verdict form is read with the instructions, the general verdict form did not allow the jury to find Hultberg guilty of indecent exposure without unanimously agreeing on the method for committing the offense. We summarily affirm the criminal judgment under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).

[¶4] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. Gerald W. VandeWalle Daniel J. Crothers

1 Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte

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

Related

State v. Doppler
2013 ND 54 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2013)
Steinbach v. State
2015 ND 34 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2015)
State v. Rodriguez
2020 ND 261 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2020)
State v. Evanson
2021 ND 4 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2021)
State v. Gaddie
2022 ND 44 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2022)
State v. Doppler
2013 ND 54 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2022 ND 78, 973 N.W.2d 4, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hultberg-nd-2022.