State v. Whitetail

North Dakota Supreme Court

State v. Whitetail

2004 ND 209, 691 N.W.2d 192, 2004 N.D. LEXIS 354, 2004 WL 3104768

CourtNorth Dakota Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 19, 2004

Docket20040187

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2004 ND 209 (State v. Whitetail) 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. Whitetail, 2004 ND 209, 691 N.W.2d 192, 2004 N.D. LEXIS 354, 2004 WL 3104768 (N.D. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

[¶ 1] Lori Whitetail appealed from a jury conviction for delivery of alcoholic beverages to persons under 21, a class A misdemeanor. Whitetail claims the State failed to introduce sufficient evidence to warrant the jury finding her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Whitetail states there was no evidence demonstrating she knowingly delivered alcohol to a minor, and she argues the minors involved in the incident “snuck” the alcohol from her home. After reviewing the entire record and looking to the evidence most favorable to the jury’s verdict and the reasonable inferences therefrom, we conclude the State introduced substantial evidence to warrant a conviction. We affirm Whitetail’s conviction under N.D.RApp.P. 35.1(a)(3).

[¶ 2] GERALD W. VANDE WALLE, C.J., DALE V. SANDSTROM, WILLIAM A. NEUMANN, MARY MUEHLEN MARING, and CAROL RONNING KAPSNER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

[¶ 1] Lori Whitetail appealed from a jury conviction for delivery of alcoholic beverages to persons under 21, a class A misdemeanor. Whitetail claims the State failed to introduce sufficient evidence to warrant the jury finding her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Whitetail states there was no evidence demonstrating she knowingly delivered alcohol to a minor, and she argues the minors involved in the incident “snuck” the alcohol from her home. After reviewing the entire record and looking to the evidence most favorable to the jury’s verdict and the reasonable inferences therefrom, we conclude the State introduced substantial evidence to warrant a conviction. We affirm Whitetail’s conviction under N.D.RApp.P. 35.1(a)(3).

[¶ 2] GERALD W. VANDE WALLE, C.J., DALE V. SANDSTROM, WILLIAM A. NEUMANN, MARY MUEHLEN MARING, and CAROL RONNING KAPSNER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2004 ND 209, 691 N.W.2d 192, 2004 N.D. LEXIS 354, 2004 WL 3104768, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-whitetail-nd-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack