State v. Wallace

Filed 11/20/19 by Clerk of Supreme Court
IN THE SUPREME COURT
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
2019 ND 265
State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee
v.
William Joseph Wallace, Defendant and Appellant
No. 20190149
Appeal from the District Court of Ward County, North Central Judicial
District, the Honorable Richard L. Hagar, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Per Curiam.
Rozanna C. Larson, State’s Attorney, Minot, ND, for plaintiff and appellee;
submitted on brief.
Kiara C. Kraus-Parr, Grand Forks, ND, for defendant and appellant.
State v. Wallace
No. 20190149
Per Curiam.
[¶1] William Wallace appeals from a criminal judgment after a jury found
him guilty of luring a minor by computer or other electronic device. Wallace
argues the district court erred in denying his motion for acquittal under
N.D.R.Crim.P. 29, based on insufficiency of the evidence. “Before granting a
motion for acquittal, the court must find the evidence is insufficient to sustain
a conviction.” State v. Gunn, 2018 ND 95, ¶ 6, 909 N.W.2d 701, cert. denied,
139 S. Ct. 231, 202 L. Ed. 2d 128 (2018). A district court abuses its discretion in
denying a motion under N.D.R.Crim.P. 29 if the evidence is insufficient to
sustain a conviction. State v. Gonzalez, 2000 ND 32, ¶ 20, 606 N.W.2d 873. “In
reviewing challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, the defendant
‘bears the burden of showing the evidence reveals no reasonable inference of
guilt when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict.’” State v. Rai,
2019 ND 71, ¶ 13, 924 N.W.2d 410. The district court did not abuse its
discretion because viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
verdict, we conclude sufficient evidence exists that could allow a jury to draw
a reasonable inference in favor of conviction. We summarily affirm under
N.D.R.App.P.35.1(a)(3),(4).
[¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.
Lisa Fair McEvers
Daniel J. Crothers
Jerod E. Tufte
Jon J. Jensen
1