Title: State v. Torkelsen
Citation: 2008 ND 137, 756 N.W.2d 548
Docket Number: 
State: north-dakota
Issuer: north-dakota Supreme Court
Date: July 2, 2008

State v. Torkelsen Annotate this Case Filed July 2, 2008 IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA 2008 ND 137 State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee v. James B. Torkelsen, Defendant and Appellant Nos. 20070369, 20070372 & 20070373 Appeal from the District Court of Towner County, Northeast Judicial District, the Honorable Lee A. Christofferson, Judge. AFFIRMED. Per Curiam. Jonathan R. Byers (argued), Assistant Attorney General, Office of Attorney General, 600 E. Boulevard Ave., Bismarck, ND 58505-0040, for plaintiff and appellee. Scott R. Thompson (argued), 409 4th Ave. NE, P.O. Box 696, Devils Lake, ND 58301-0696, for defendant and appellant. State v. Torkelsen Nos. 20070369, 20070372 & 20070373 Per Curiam. [¶1] James Torkelsen appeals a criminal judgment and order for commitment finding him guilty of three counts of sexual assault under N.D.C.C. §12.1-20-07(1)(b) following a bench trial. [¶2] Torkelsen argues the district court erred in denying his motion for acquittal because there was insufficient evidence to sustain his convictions. In his brief and during argument, Torkelsen conceded the State met its burden in proving I.M.M., the victim of the alleged sexual assaults, has a mental disease or defect, which rendered her incapable of understanding the nature of Torkelsen's alleged conduct, satisfying the first element of all three charges. Torkelsen conceded there was sufficient evidence to prove he knew of or had reasonable cause to believe I.M.M. was afflicted with the requisite mental disease or defect, satisfying the second element of all three charges. During argument, Torkelsen further conceded there was sufficient evidence to sustain the convictions for counts one and two of the criminal complaint. Therefore, Torkelsen disputes only the third element of the crime charged in count three, arguing the State did not provide sufficient evidence to prove the specific sexual contact alleged in count three of the criminal complaint. [¶3] We summarily affirm the district court's criminal judgment and order for commitment under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3), finding there is sufficient evidence to support a conviction for count three of the criminal complaint. [¶4] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J. Carol Ronning Kapsner Dale V. Sandstrom Daniel J. Crothers Wade L. Webb, D.J. [¶5] The Honorable Wade L. Webb, D.J., sitting in place of Maring, J., disqualified.