Opinion ID: 2960711
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Acquiring face paint.

Text: [¶23] The jury found Keller guilty of conspiracy to commit murder. The jury verdict form did not specify whether the jury found Keller guilty of conspiracy to commit intentional murder or guilty of conspiracy to commit murder under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to the value of human life. The conspiracy to commit murder instructions did not provide a choice of the circumstances under which the offense was committed for the jury. In Borner , the final jury instructions defined conspiracy to commit murder as follows: A person is guilty of conspiracy to commit murder if the person agreed with another to knowingly engage in or cause conduct which, in fact, constitutes the offense of murder of another under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life , and one party to that agreement did an overt act to effect an objective of the conspiracy. 2013 ND 141, ¶ 5, 836 N.W.2d 383 (emphasis added). Therefore, unlike in Borner , the jury instructions on the conspiracy charge here did not include any reference to conduct manifesting an extreme indifference to the value of human life. [¶24] Additionally, in Keller , 2005 ND 86, ¶ 52, 695 N.W.2d 703, we outlined the evidence before the jury pertaining to the plan between the co-conspirator, Michael Sherman, and Keller, noting: There was evidence that Sherman had talked about a “plan” to avoid being arrested and sent back to jail if confronted by law enforcement officers. That plan included using hostages and killing law enforcement officers. Although Keller admits he may have planned to use hostages if confronted by the police, he claims he never intended to kill any police officers and did not agree to a plan to kill police officers. However, in a statement to police shortly after being arrested, Keller acknowledged that he and Sherman had talked about a “shootout” and about “shooting cops.” Moreover, there was evidence that, as between Sherman and Keller, Sherman was the person in charge, and the circumstances in this case support an inference that Keller implicitly agreed to the plan. The evidence included a plan to kill law enforcement officers. Accordingly, because the information and jury instructions did not reference extreme indifference to the value of human life, and considering the facts of the case included a plan to kill a law enforcement officer, it is logical that the jury properly found Keller guilty of conspiring to commit intentional murder under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-06-04 and N.D.C.C. § 12.1-16-01(1)(a), rather than § 12.1-16-01(1)(b). As such, Keller has not established this Court’s holding in Borner relates to his case. [¶25] Because Keller has not shown a new constitutional or statutory interpretation applies to his case, we need not address part two of the two-part analysis under N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-01(3)(a)(3) — whether the interpretations can be applied retroactively. Keller has failed to satisfy the requirements under N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1- 01(3)(a)(3) to show an exception to the two-year filing limit. While the district court dismissed Keller’s application for post-conviction relief on a different basis, we will not set aside a correct result merely because the district court dismissed for a different reason. See Guardianship of P.T. , 2014 ND 223, ¶ 12, 857 N.W.2d 367 (citing Investors Title Insurance Co. v. Herzig , 2010 ND 169, ¶ 40, 788 N.W.2d 312).