State v. Hultberg , 2022 ND 78 ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                                                                               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
    Per Curiam.
    [¶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
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20210301

Citation Numbers: 2022 ND 78

Judges: Per Curiam

Filed Date: 4/14/2022

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 4/14/2022