State v. Lampert

2025 ND 106

• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court
• Decided: June 5, 2025
• Docket: No. 20240271
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2025 ND 106

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Corbin Alexander Lampert, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20240271

Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Pamela A. Nesvig, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Julie A. Lawyer, State’s Attorney (argued), and Gabrielle J. Goter, Assistant State’s Attorney (appeared), Bismarck, ND, for plaintiff and appellee.

Justin M. Balzer (argued) and Brooke A. Benson (on brief), Bismarck, ND, for defendant and appellant. State v. Lampert No. 20240271

[¶1] Corbin Lampert appeals from a judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of murder and unlawful possession of a firearm, arguing his convictions should be overturned because the verdicts were based on insufficient evidence. He also argues the district court abused its discretion by allowing a witness to testify after violating a sequestration order.

[¶2] After reviewing the record we conclude the evidence was sufficient to support a finding that Lampert was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt for both charges of murder and unlawful possession of a firearm. See State v. Watts, 2024 ND 158, ¶ 14, 10 N.W.3d 563 (stating a defendant must show the evidence permits no reasonable inference of guilt and that this Court does not reweigh conflicting evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses). We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).

[¶3] The district court did not abuse its discretion permitting the witness to testify. See State v. Wanner, 2010 ND 121, ¶¶ 13, 17, 784 N.W.2d 143 (stating it is in the district court’s discretion to allow a witness to testify despite hearing prior testimony in violation of a sequestration order and that the party objecting to the testimony must show the witness was influenced by the prior testimony and the objecting party would be prejudiced by the influenced testimony). We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).

[¶4] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte Douglas A. Bahr