Court Opinion

ID: 9526703
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:22:29.020846+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:21:11.880378
License: Public Domain

SANDSTROM, Justice,
dissenting.
[¶ 28] Because I would affirm the judgment of conviction, I respectfully dissent.
[¶ 29] The majority asserts obvious error, that is, North Dakota case law was clearly established and at the trial the lawyers and judge just missed the plain fact. Here the majority’s problem is even greater than it was in State v. Bomer because even the lawyers on appeal “missed” what the majority asserts was “clearly established law.” Let us be clear; the majority reverses Whitman’s conviction of conspiracy to commit murder on a basis never argued by Whitman even on appeal.
[¶ 80] The majority’s assertion that what it divined as the law in Bomer was clearly established North Dakota law prior to its opinion is hard to fathom. At ¶ 5, the majority quotes itself in Bomer as saying, “We are persuaded, by the reasoning of those courts that conclude conspiracy to commit unintentional murder creates a logical inconsistency because ‘one cannot agree in advance to accomplish an unintended result.’” (Emphasis added.) That the majority acknowledged it was persuaded by the reasoning of some non-North Dakota courts over that of other non-North Dakota courts in reaching its decision clearly establishes that there was no clearly established North Dakota law on the point before its opinion.
[¶ 31] Seeking drugs, Whitman and Cody Borner took guns to the home of Michael, Timothy, and Shelly Padilla. At the house, a confrontation ensued between Whitman and Borner and two of the residents. Michael Padilla was shot and killed, and another resident was shot and wounded. Whitman and Borner fled the scene, leaving the weapons behind. Law enforcement officers went to Whitman’s home, where he turned himself in. Whit*409man was arrested and charged with two counts of conspiracy to commit murder. Both Whitman and Borner were convicted of conspiracy to commit murder. On appeal, for the first time, Borner argued that conspiracy to commit murder under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life is not a crime in North Dakota. In State v. Borner, 2013 ND 141, 836 N.W.2d 383, the majority accepted his view and claimed that it had been clearly established North Dakota law all along even though no North Dakota court had ever said such a thing. Because the issue had not been raised in the trial court, if it was not clearly established law, there was no obvious error and it was improper to reverse the conviction. See Borner, at ¶¶ 71-77 (Sandstrom, J., dissenting); see also N.D.R.Crim.P. 52; State v. Austin, 520 N.W.2d 564, 569 (N.D.1994) (when an issue has not been raised in the trial court, reversal on appeal requires obvious error); State v. Vandehoven, 2009 ND 165, ¶¶ 28-29, 772 N.W.2d 603 (obvious error established when interpretive caselaw has enunciated clear guidelines).
[¶ 32] Meanwhile, Whitman appealed, completely unaware of what the majority was going to claim was “clearly established” North Dakota law. On appeal, Whitman raised only the Miranda issue that the majority correctly rejects in part V of its opinion.
[¶ 33] I would affirm Whitman’s conviction.
[¶ 34] Dale V. Sandstrom