IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2023 ND 46

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Dacotah Ryder Hanson, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20220215

Appeal from the District Court of Williams County, Northwest Judicial 

District, the Honorable Joshua B. Rustad, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Opinion of the Court by McEvers, Justice.

Nathan K. Madden, Assistant State’s Attorney, Williston, ND, for plaintiff and 

appellee; submitted on brief.

Richard E. Edinger, Fargo, ND, for defendant and appellant.

FILED 

IN THE OFFICE OF THE 

CLERK OF SUPREME COURT 

MARCH 16, 2023 

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
1

State v. Hanson

No. 20220215

McEvers, Justice.

[¶1] Dacotah Ryder Hanson appeals from a criminal judgment entered after 

a jury found him guilty of leaving the scene of an accident involving death and 

manslaughter. Hanson argues the State commenting on his right not to testify 

created reversible error. Hanson also argues the evidence was insufficient to 

support the criminal convictions. We affirm.

I

[¶2] On November 28, 2018, a fatal motor vehicle rollover occurred near

Tioga, North Dakota. Officers responded and observed a pickup truck lying on 

its passenger’s side in the middle of a field. Officers also observed a deceased 

male lying outside the passenger’s side door of the truck. The truck was 

registered to Hanson.

[¶3] At trial, law enforcement testified Hanson’s cell phone and pack of 

cigarettes were located in a field near the truck. Further evidence was 

presented, including handprints and other markings on the roof and driver’s 

side door, showing the driver had climbed out of the truck by the driver’s side. 

The markings led from the truck to the direction of Hanson’s residence. During 

closing argument, the State commented on Hanson’s lack of an explanation for 

his theory of the case. Part of Hanson’s defense theory suggested he was not 

the driver. The State asked how Hanson could have possibly extricated himself 

from underneath someone who is pinned under a truck. The defense objected 

on the grounds that the State was “coming dangerously close to saying the 

defendant needed to testify.” The objection was overruled. The jury found 

Hanson guilty of leaving the scene of an accident involving death and 

manslaughter. Hanson appeals.

II

[¶4] Hanson argues the State committed prosecutorial misconduct by 

improperly commenting during closing argument on his right not to testify. 
2

[¶5] “It is a fundamental principle of constitutional law that a prosecutor may 

not comment on a defendant’s failure to testify in a criminal case.” State v. 

Jennewein, 2015 ND 192, ¶ 18, 867 N.W.2d 665 (citations omitted). “A comment 

on the silence of a defendant is an improper comment on the right to remain 

silent in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the [United 

States] Constitution.” State v. Ebach, 1999 ND 5, ¶ 15, 589 N.W.2d 566; see 

also N.D. Const. art. I, § 12; N.D.C.C. § 29-21-11. This Court reviews de novo a 

claim of a constitutional rights violation. Jennewein, at ¶ 18.

[¶6] In Jennewein, we explained:

Generally, a statement that certain evidence is uncontroverted or 

unrefuted or uncontradicted does not constitute a comment on the 

accused’s failure to testify where the record indicates that persons 

other than the accused could have offered contradictory testimony. 

In analyzing a claim that a particular comment was 

impermissible, we ask: “Was the language used manifestly 

intended to be, or was it of such character that the jury would 

naturally and necessarily take it to be a comment on the failure of 

the accused to testify?” If an impermissible comment was made, 

we must be able to declare the error was harmless beyond a 

reasonable doubt after considering the entire record to affirm the 

conviction.

2015 ND 192, ¶ 18 (cleaned up). 

[¶7] Here, the State commented on Hanson’s lack of an explanation for his 

theory of the case. During closing argument, the State argued:

MR. MADDEN: So how’d Dacotah get out from under somebody 

who’s pinned by a 1969 Ford Truck? That’s a lot of weight to bench 

press; isn’t it? But the defense doesn’t have an explanation for how 

the Defendant supposedly extricated himself. 

MR. SKEES: Objection, Your Honor. The State’s coming 

dangerously close to saying that the Defendant needed to testify. 

MR. MADDEN: No. I am not. I’m just saying that they never 

provided an explanation. They tossed the thing out and didn’t 

provide an explanation. 
3

THE COURT: Well, overruled, but noted.

[¶8] In his opening statement, Hanson offered an explanation that he was not 

the one driving the vehicle when the rollover occurred. During closing 

argument, the State asked how Hanson could have possibly extricated himself 

from underneath someone who is pinned under a truck. The State’s comment 

was not improper because the State did not comment on Hanson’s failure to 

testify, nor was the comment intended to be a comment on Hanson’s failure to 

testify. Instead, the State’s comment focused on the inconsistencies present in 

Hanson’s case. See Ebach, 1999 ND 5, ¶ 15 (holding a prosecutor’s statement 

drawing attention to inconsistent testimony given at trial was not a statement 

requiring reversal); United States v. Bentley, 561 F.3d 803, 813 (8th Cir. 2009)

(same, finding the comments neither “manifest the prosecutor’s intention” to 

comment on Bentley’s silence at trial, nor would the jury “naturally take them 

as a comment on the defendant’s failure to testify”). We are not convinced the 

State’s comment here was improper.

III

[¶9] Hanson argues insufficient evidence exists to support the criminal 

convictions. After reviewing the record, we conclude substantial evidence 

exists for a jury to draw a reasonable inference that Hanson was the driver of 

the vehicle. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).

IV

[¶10] We have considered the remaining issues and arguments raised by 

Hanson and conclude them to be either without merit or unnecessary to our 

decision. The criminal judgment is affirmed.

[¶11] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.

Daniel J. Crothers

Lisa Fair McEvers

Jerod E. Tufte

Douglas A. Bahr