State v. Doornek and City of Grand Forks v. Doornek , 902 N.W.2d 515 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  • Filed 9/20/17 by Clerk of Supreme Court

    IN THE SUPREME COURT

    STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

      

      

      

    2017 ND 226

      

      

      

    State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

      

    v.

      

    Jake Wyatt Doornek, Defendant and Appellant

      

      

      

    No. 20170020

      

      

      

    City of Grand Forks, Plaintiff and Appellee

      

    v.

      

    Jake Wyatt Doornek, Defendant and Appellant

      

      

      

    No. 20170027

      

      

      

      

    Appeals from the District Court of Grand Forks County, Northeast Central Judicial District, the Honorable Donald Hager, Judge.

      

    AFFIRMED.

      

    Per Curiam.

      

    Haley L. Wamstad (argued), Assistant State’s Attorney, Grand Forks, N.D., for plaintiff and appellee State of North Dakota.

      

    Kristi P. Venhuizen (on brief), City Prosecutor, Grand Forks, N.D., for plaintiff and appellee City of Grand Forks.

      

    Kiara C. Kraus-Parr, Grand Forks, N.D., for defendant and appellant.

    State v. Doornek

    Nos. 20170020 and 20170027

      

    Per Curiam.

    [¶1] Jake Doornek appeals from a criminal judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of one count of theft of property and two counts of assaulting a peace officer.  Doornek argues that the district court erred by denying his motion to sever the trial of the theft charge from the trial of the assault charges, a motion he did not renew at the close of evidence.  Doornek failed to meet his burden under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b).   See State v. Neufeld , 1998 ND 103, ¶ 15, 578 N.W.2d 536 (“Severance is only required when a defendant has made a convincing showing he has both important testimony to give concerning one count and a strong need to refrain from testifying in another.”); see also State v. Tresenriter , 2012 ND 240, ¶ 12, 823 N.W.2d 774 (noting that to “constitute obvious error, the error must be a clear deviation from an applicable legal rule under current law”).  Doornek also argues that the district court erred by denying his motion for acquittal.  We conclude that sufficient evidence exists in the record to sustain his conviction.  We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (7).

    [¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

    Jerod E. Tufte

    Daniel J. Crothers

    Lisa Fair McEvers

    Jon J. Jensen

Document Info

Docket Number: 20170020, 20170027

Citation Numbers: 2017 ND 226, 902 N.W.2d 515, 2017 WL 4159235

Judges: Vandewalle, Tufte, Crothers, McEvers, Jensen

Filed Date: 9/20/2017

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024